Before everything else, thank you very much for sharing your thoughts and experience: as a newcomer, I found them very valuable.

Hm. It seems like a NameChooser should *somehow* be giving you a
usable name. That pair::

   container[name] = content
   return container[name]

seems redundant on first look, but it's what gives a bound object in
typical Zope 3 situations.

This did not seem redundant to me, even on first look: let's call it a "run-time test" of the container...

However, this is not a typical Zope 3
situation. Well, it actually brings up the point with which I had so
much frustration a few months ago: what is a typical Zope 3 situation?

I can only express a newbie point of view: an object or a functionality works if you can see it in the ZMI, as this is my first impact with Zope.
From your answer, I guess I will have to tweak my expectations...

"Object Relational Mapping is the Vietnam of Computer Science"


I already knew this article; since I am not in a huge corporate environment, some points don't apply to me. Thank you for pointing it out anyway; I think it is a must-read for everyone working or willing to work with O/RMs.

> I think that my company's recent experiences with Zope and SQLAlchemy
show that the fundamentals of Zope can be terrific toolkit for rich
object oriented RDBMS / Business Object backed applications that have
nothing to do with content management.

Your work seems surprisingly similar to what I want to achieve in the long run. Besides, you answered a general question I was thinking to post about suitability of Zope for business/no-cm applications. At the moment, I am still in a "semi-evaluation" phase, so your experience somewhat comforts me :)

> However, we're also massively behind schedule. This
> project we've been working on has involved a lot more engineering than
> we foresaw.

This somewhat discomforts me :(

Carlo Cardelli.

Zope3-users mailing list

Reply via email to