[ZODB-Dev] future ZODB documentation

[Steve Waterbury]

Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Michel Pelletier wrote:
> 
> > Amos and I (and Paul and Jim) need to think about this.  Does anyone else
> > have an opinion about a ZODB programmer's guide?  The dev guide?  I think
> > one of my concers with the former is more maintenance but my concerns
> > with the latter are possibly being too zope specific (although we've
> > tried to avoid that).
> 
> I'm biased of course, but my personal opinion is that the ZODB _should_
> have StandaloneDocumentation. There is practically no standalone docs
> apart from Andrew's work, and some people (me perhaps) don't really want
> to weed through Zope documentation to find the ZODB information. Not
> implying weeds or anything like that, please 8) -- I guess it's a case for
> practicality and visibility to have docs standalone. Please consider it.

Separate documentation for ZODB would also get my vote ... I 
think DC would gain from it also, as it makes the ZODB more reusable 
and more widely "visible".  My team will not be using Zope, but 
we are very likely to use the ZODB.

-- Steve.

Stephen C. Waterbury                       Component Technologies
Code 562, NASA/GSFC                  and Radiation Effects Branch