Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 3/1/06, Chris Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Does this help with implementing persistent schemas at all?

Maybe, although I feel that the interface-based schemas was a mistake
anyway. It would probably be better to focus energy on making XForms
based schemas, both persistent and not.

Just my 0.02€

I'll pitch in my two centimes as well. Not only that, but I'll actually work on the implementation. :^) I'm already doing XForms-style TTW dev in a pet project.

I'm personally interested in TTW approaches that look at the problem from a different perspective. I realize that (a) not everybody will have that perspective and (b) trying to prod others to do it isn't fair, that I should do it myself.

In a nutshell, my perspective is that the TTW environment should use TTW technologies. It shouldn't try to make some semi-restricted, safe subset of the on-disk technologies work correctly "TTW".

I also endorse the idea others have made of not making this part of the core. Perhaps not even use the name Zope for the TTW package, similar to how Rotterdam originally intended to have its own mini-brand.

In fact, perhaps the effort could be done without really being tied to Zope at all. TTW dev that provided REST-style introspection and updating. Glue code (I'm envisioning lxml's namespace extensions) that make the object model and TTW model seamless.

Anyway, that's all just my silly little perspective. :^) Until I actually show anything, it's moot.


Zope3-dev mailing list
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to