On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 11:00:11AM -0500, Chris Kratz wrote:
> > 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?
> > cheers,
> > Chris
> 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
> appropriate editor.
> 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.
DirectoryViews would mean you'd lose #4.
Otherwise, I think they'd work for you and it's a much simpler solution
Also, if you have any persistent objects for which there isn't an existing
FSObject-derived version, you'd have to write one.
Another issue is that AFAIK there's no way to control the refresh
interval of FSObject subclasses. I guess you could monkeypatch
FSObject._updateFromFS. You might want to do that anyway so you
don't have to run your production servers in debug mode.
Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -