Jim Fulton wrote:
Here's what I'd like to see:
1. Separate server definition from application definition. They are way too interwoven now. I'd like to see us move to Paste Deploy (or something based on the framework it defines).

Is this the seperation of "what objects are being served" from "what protocols are being served" that I mentioned in my other reply?

Someone. More it's a separation of the server definition from the application definition.


I suppose, you would like to do the server definition thru something like paste.deploy (allowing us to let the assembly currently done by the two main programs be done generically).

What would the application definition be? Still ZConfig?

(Note that in my original reply to ChrisW, I tried to be pragmatic. Of course, if ChrisW has the resources to go into this refactoring, by all means, let's do it).

In my dreams, it'd be great if I could just wire in a different IApplication utility to get the root of the object tree and just leave the zodb section of zope.conf empty. How hard would that be to achieve?

There are two parts of your question. Making it simpler to plug in a different application root, and dealing with ZConfig.

Ironically, the current publication object doesn't make much use of the component architecture. This is a historical accident. I'd like to see a different publication object that did use the component architecture more.


In order to implement a simpler security mechanism for grok, we had to re-implement every single publication (though of course subclassing was still possible, but we had to create a new variant of every publication class). That shouldn't be necessary.

WRT ZConfig. I find myself fighting ZConfig a lot. If I were to write a new main program, I wouldn't use it at all. In fact, I would probably use a much simpler model like that used by Paste Deploy. I really don't want to have a ZConfig argument though. I got out voted on that last year. If you do want to use ZConfig, you could simply use the application schema defined in zope.app.appsetup rather than the ones in the server packages.

I think the ZConfig argument was largely due to misunderstandings. I would be surprised if people really cared whether to Zope used ConfigParser or ZConfig (except Fred, perhaps ;))

http://worldcookery.com -- Professional Zope documentation and training
2nd edition of Web Component Development with Zope 3 is now shipping!
Zope3-dev mailing list
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to