On 10 Aug 2007, at 04:03 , Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 09 August 2007 14:59, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
When we moved stuff out of zope.app, we made the mistake of overloading zope.component. I wouldn't want to make that mistake again. That's why I don't think it should go into zope.component. I was once close to moving ISite out of zope.app.component (and Baiju actually did it once without
discussing it first, IIRC), but Jim had doubts... I don't remember,
perhaps he can speak up :)


I agree, the site concept is about locality, which is a concept on top of
zope.component.

I see no concept of "locality" whatsoever in zope.component.

By the way, I personally find the word "site" a bit misguided. An ISite is not a "website". An "ISite" may often be used as the root object for
a website, but it can just as well be used for other objects in the
hierarchy.

In fact, technically speaking, a "site" is just a place that has access to a component registry. So "sites" are places in your object hierarchy
that allow component registrations, in other words, that allow the
alteration of component acquisition. (If you compare that with Zope 2
and the old-school attribute acquisition, every object was a site back
then. Now it's limited to very specific objects that provide ISite).

I would much rather call this "place that has a component registry".
That's a bit too long, of course. "component place", or even better,
"component site" sounds short enough to me for a package name (e.g.
zope.componentsite).

To cut a long story short, I'm +1, but zope.componentsite or so would be
much preferred to zope.site.

I think "site" is widely understood term in Zope 3 now and everyone knows
about it.

Everyone who knows Zope 3. I do Zope 3 trainings frequently and "site" is just one of those terms that confuse a lot of people. Newbies tend to associate "website" with it, people with previous Zope experience seem to compare it to a CMF/Plone Site (which isn't too far fetched, exxcept that a CMF Site is so much more like a website than our site is).

We gain absolutely nothing by renaming it.

I disagree. We have lots of clarity to gain.

From my experience, explaining that sites are "places where component registrations can happen" has worked out much better than any other explanation. So why shouldn't we call them at least "component sites" to make clear that all they're really about is components (their registration and lookup)?

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

Reply via email to