> Now, if using svn for source control is the only reason he was using
> APE, surely you'd agree that DirecotyViews are a more appropriate method?
Yes, you are more or less correct. The primary reason we went to APE was
after having tried the nightmares of the various zope cvs products which just
seemed to be able to tie themselves into knots after awhile. APElib allowed
us to persist all objects as plain text files on the file system so that
normal file system tools can be used for development. After we went to APE
we moved from CVS to subversion. Now most of us develop using a text editor
directly modifying our zope objects. We have the refresh interval dialed
down to 1s on our dev boxes and 5-10 minutes on the live servers. This
allows us to easily shoehorn minor patches (fix - commit - update server)
without any service interruption on the live server. So, our reasons for
using Apelib were...
1. Allow use of source control (branching, diffs, revision history, etc) on
all content types as plain text files, not python pickles.
2. Allow editing of zope objects (DTML, ZPT, ZSQL, py script) externally in
3. Allow us to quickly push out minor patches to running servers.
4. A distant final item was using TTW editing to do minor tweaks.
The only downsides we've found for apelib are that 1, it's slow and it's been
end of lifed by it's creator. Two of us have taken stabs at trying to make
it so it can run in newer versions of zope, but our deep zope fu isn't up to
the challenge (nor do we have a lot of time). And it seems that low level
stuff for zodb storage's change with every release (as shane noted in his eol
Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -