On 12/2/10 12:18 AM, Cristopher Ewing wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2010, at 3:48 PM, Alex Clark wrote:
>> I'm afraid I'm already confused :-). Is templer.core the zopeskel
>> package renamed?
> I wish it were a bit less confusing, but let me try to explain.
> zopeskel as it currently exists will eventually be replaced by an empty egg 
> which simply depends on all the various templer.whatever packages I am 
> working on creating now.  That way, folks will still be able to 'easy_install 
> zopeskel' and get exactly what they get now.

Ah, cool, that makes sense.

> However, because we are breaking the big zopeskel up into smaller templer 
> pieces, someone could also easy_install templer.plone_core and get only the 
> templates that help them to create plone namespace and plone.app namespace 
> packages, or easy_install templer.plone_addons and get theme and add-on 
> package templates, or perhaps easy_install templer.plone and get all of the 
> plone-related templates.


> We can even start creating templates for other systems, so perhaps there 
> might eventually be templates for pylons, django, grok, or whatever else is 
> out there.  The core package really only includes the basics for a very 
> simple namespace and nested namespace packages.  I'm even considering 
> removing the zc.buildout recipe template that is currently there and putting 
> it into a separate buildout base package so we can start templating buildouts 
> for all sorts of systems.  I'm constantly throwing together quick buildouts 
> for development work I'm doing in django.  I want a django buildout template 
> :)

Right, +1.

(FWIW, a Django buildout is easy:

   parts = django

   recipe = djangorecipe
   version = trunk
   #version = 1.2.3
   #version = 1.2
   #version = 1.1
   #version = 1.0
Works good enough.)

> Anyway, I hope this helps make clear what is going on here.  Read the 
> manifesto on splitting zopeskel in the trunk of the zopeskel code.  Joel 
> Burton does a fantastic job of laying out the aims and rationale behind these 
> moves.  I'm just the guy to whom the job fell.

Yes! Thanks for the refresher.

> Thanks for asking, and for taking a look.

No problem, I see what you mean now. We should use the branch you have 
that contains a "dummy" zopeskel to pull in the templer.core stuff.

This is pretty exciting IMO, we could theoretically PLIP templer.plone 
to be included in the Plone core at some point…


> c
> ********************************
> Cris Ewing
> Webmaster, Lead Developer
> Department of Radiology Web Services
> University of Washington
> School of Medicine
> Work Phone: (206) 616-1288
> Cell Phone: (206) 708-9083
> E-mail: cew...@u.washington.edu
> Web: http://www.rad.washington.edu
> *******************************

Alex Clark · http://aclark.net
Author · http://aclark.net/admin

ZopeSkel mailing list

Reply via email to