[Zope] Re: [Plone-developers] the grand reunion

Yuri yurj at alfa.it
Mon Apr 14 03:39:34 EDT 2008

> > I would like to have an easy way to develop without having to be subject 
> > to dependencies from other envinroment, minimize the effort to mantain 
> > it and focus on doing things  :) 
> > 
> Maybe not exactly what you are asking for but I recommend you play
> with buildout a bit - I'm sure you'll appreciate the ease with which
> you can manage independent installations in a repeatable and easily
> modifiable way.
>> > Is one big zope installation, with multiple instances, well suited for 
>> > this tasks? Or is better different zope versions? What about the various 
>> > Data.fs, is better to have them separated by application or by zope 
>> > envinroment? I mean all the Plone in a single Data.fs or each one in a 
>> > separated Data.fs?
>> > 
> Without further knowing how these sites might be related or not
> this is hard to answer but often times I prefer to have separate
> Zope instances (-> different ZODBs) for different Plone sites.
> Even if they share substantial configuration/add-ons etc.
> Again, using buildout makes it a snap to create and maintain
> as many Zope instances as you want. And using a common buildout
> cache they can also mostly share the basic installation.
> Just my 2 cents,
> 	Raphael

> hi yuri,
> when setting up a zope/zeo task and everything was still a bit of a 
> challenge (at least to me) we tended to have everything in one big 
> instance that served some 20 low traffic sites.
> since then setting up a site with all the tools it needs has become a 
> trivially easy and quick to execute task. we have converted nearly all 
> these sites to have their own instance.
> I would not do it differently anymore ..
> robert

Thanks to all!

 It seems that a separate zope instance for each plone site is the way 
to go. Just a question: is it a problem for performance/bottleneck/big 
python lock?

More information about the Zope mailing list