[Zope-CMF] Re: Tools as local utilities

Philipp von Weitershausen philipp at weitershausen.de
Wed Feb 7 05:56:56 EST 2007

Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> On 7 Feb 2007, at 01:58, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
>> Eggs contain Python packages. How you deploy the Python packages is 
>> your choice. If you like copying or symlinking, fine. And, heck, you 
>> can still symlink your products to Products. Nobody's getting rid of 
>> Products. But please-oh-please let us start developing new things in 
>> regular packages so that we can
>> a) make use of the tools provided to us by the greater Python community
>> b) ease other Python programmers into Zope (no more weird Products, no 
>> more "Zope stinks", no more "Zope is its own universe"). Some of us 
>> *like* reaching out.
>> c) make things easier for *ourselves* (being able to test a simple 
>> Python package outside the context of a full-blown Zope instance is a 
>> tremendous win).
> I won't grace the uncalled-for sarcasm with an answer.

Jens, I didn't mean to be sarcastic. Sorry if that came across wrong.

> You misunderstand 
> my point. I simply don't want the existing dead-simple way of creating 
> quick sandboxes be replaced by some mechanism where I need to start 
> writing configuration files or learn some wondrous framework, just 
> because it's been decreed the technology du jour.

I understand and believe it or not, I also sympathize :). The good news 
is that it's still possible. After all, the initial argument of this 
thread wasn't that we wanted to eggify or buildoutify CMF, but that we 
wanted to introduce standard Python packages as possible dependencies. 
Such packages only have to be on the PYTHONPATH, e.g. put into 
INSTANCE/lib/python. How they end up there is up to you. As said, 
symlinking, copying, etc. still works.

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