Look, a whole bunch of great questions for Wed's IRC chat. :^)
I propose 1PM Eastern on Wed for the chat. We'll make a more formal
announcement tomorrow. (Right, Ethan?)
Jimmie Houchin wrote:
> 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
> > 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
> > signatures).
> > --Paul
Zope maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -