Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2007-7-18 22:59 +0200:
>On 18 Jul 2007, at 21:13 , Dieter Maurer wrote:
>> I prefer the standard approach:
>> I see a framework -- Zope
>> and a large number of application components that plug themself
>> into the common framework.
>> The application, in fact a complete collection of mini-applications
>> is configured via objects in the ZODB and can be extended TTW.
>Right. This is what Martijn Faassen aptly calls the "Zope 2000"
>development model. And it's probably about the farthest away from
>working together with other Python web frameworks
I agree with this.
>and toning down
>Zope for an easier entry.
But, Zope is quite easy on entry.
I expect that the traditional "Zope-the-application" was easier
to install and to build applications with than your new approach
* the application package
* one instance per application
True, experts can combine different Python web frameworks -- but what
part of the Zope audience will need this?
True, Python experts can be more economic with their knowledge.
But, it appears the things become more difficult for non-experts.
Zope3-dev mailing list