[Zope-CMF] Re: Tools as local utilities

Philipp von Weitershausen philipp at weitershausen.de
Tue Feb 6 19:47:09 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.

I can see why people would be appalled by easy_install, at least in its 
default incarnation (inside a workingenv or a zc.buildout it's quite nice).

There's little to be afraid for concerning eggs, though. They're just 
directories with Python packages in them (they often come in a ZIP form 
and may also be installed that way, which doesn't chagne the fact that 
they're just directories with Python packages in them).

> I've never had a problem with using Products especially since the
> introduction of "local" Products with Zope 2.7.

I have no idea what "local Products" should be, but the Products package 
contains more magic than anybody should have to handle. The whole reason 
we have "zopectl debug" and "zopectl test" instead of a simple 
"debugzope" and "test" script (like we do have in Zope 3) is that Zope 
wants an extra special treatment for its Products thing. Doese zopectl 
work on Windows? No, it doesn't, because it builds on zdaemon. There, 
Products sucks. If Products were usinig standard Python idioms like 
namespace packages, etc., we wouldn't have that problem.

http://worldcookery.com -- Professional Zope documentation and training
Next Zope 3 training at Camp5: http://trizpug.org/boot-camp/camp5

More information about the Zope-CMF mailing list