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
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 :(
Zope3-users mailing list