[Zope-CMF] Re: Tools as local utilities

Martin Aspeli optilude at gmx.net
Tue Feb 6 18:36:33 EST 2007

Charlie Clark wrote:
> Am 06.02.2007 um 22:14 schrieb Rocky:
>> Ultimately the closer we get to structuring our code deployment like
>> regular python code the easier it will be to take advantage of things
>> like distutils, eggs, the cheeseshop, etc.  I look forward to doing:
>>   easy_install ZopeCMF
> I hate eggs and easy_install and for me they are not part of "regular  
> python code" but reminiscent of script kiddy magic dust which I  
> *really* don't want in my apps.

Why? Is it the ability to specify sensible version restrictions? Have 
multiple versions of the same package as different dependencies for 
different dependents? Automatic downloading of dependencies where 
possible/desired? Standardised package metadata? Standardised location 
to find and search for add-on libraries?

Eggs are just ways of deploying libraries in ways that make your life 
easier. I don't like the name, but I let it go.

> I know what's driving it and I know  
> it's unfortunately almost unavoidable but I don't have to like it.  
> I've never had a problem with using Products especially since the  
> introduction of "local" Products with Zope 2.7.

Meanwhile, the rest of the Python world came up with something better 
and more widely accepted. Until Zope 2.10 and Plone 3, the whole Plone 
and CMF stack depended on no library that was re-usable outside of Zope 
(apart from PIL, and unless you count parts of Zope 3 shipped with Zope 
2.8+). Eggs make your life easier, especially if you want to use tools 
like workingenv.py or zc.buildout.


More information about the Zope-CMF mailing list