Are Python Products considered implementation level?

Or another question. What are the current reasons that Perl Products are
a no no?

Where are the lines for having other languages being first class
citizens of Zope without them being "implementation languages"?

I think this also goes back to and begs the question of what is core
Zope and what is built upon it?

This somewhat could be answered by the modularization of Zope and it's
companion packages.

Just a couple of questions to hopefully clarify things.

Jimmie Houchin

Paul Everitt wrote:
> Bill wrote:
[snip stuff about Perl's OO model]
> It's funny that you bring this up.  One of the really interesting things
> about this project so far is learning about Perl internals.  You're
> description is, apparently, pretty accurate.
> However, the way we've done this mitigates the issue in two ways.
> First, Perl doesn't need objects to fulfill its job.  Functions are
> bound to the object system.  All the real stuff (persistence,
> transactions, etc.) is in Zope (read: Python).  Honestly, the goal
> really _is_ to make Perl a scripting language for Zope, not an
> implementation language!  The contract says so!
> Second, ActiveState will work on improving facilities missing in Perl,
> such as reflection, to support our requirements (e.g. sniffing at method
> signatures).
> --Paul

Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to