> So my plea is: If we're going to have more than one way to do it, > let's please not invent lots of special magical things that > "just work" in one mode of development and have to be laboriously > rewritten in the other mode of development. It makes the border > between modes of working too hard to cross and makes Zope 2 feel > rather un-agile at times. > Would it be possible to define a contract for a "way to do it": e.g. we always have the tree available; we have annotations on objects; we have access to core system and utilities.
Then the core could be provided w/o zodb; the zodb would be a compliant persistence utility, and would interact w/ other objects via their "persistence interface" or whatever, so that if these other objects followed their own "way of doing things" they would plug together seamlessly. Excuse me if I'm merely restating the proposal that we are talking about. In my mind "way of doing things" is still too fuzzy, but perhaps it can be made tighter (or someone else understands it better). But in particular, wrt to Shane's original proposal, the "web root" would be another compliant persistence utility. A RDBMS store would be another type. So their wouldn't be "one root to rule them all", but at any point in the tree a subtree could be provided by a different persistence utility. _______________________________________________ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com