[Zope3-dev] Zope Package (Directory) Structure Reorganization

[Shane Hathaway]

R. David Murray wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> 
>>Calling it 'static content' instead of OFS sounds like an interesting
>>idea.
>>
>>But.. what I meant is that an image is a kind of file, but gets its
>>own class of object. Why? Why not have special OFS content then for
>>textfile objects as well (with an editor interface). Why not something for
>>a mail message? After all one can run into those on the filesystem.. and so on.
>>
> 
> I think the idea we are leaning toward here is that the goal of
> what was formerly OFS was/is to provide the infrastructure within
> zope to house the kind of static content that, say, an Apache user
> would expect to be able to upload to his web site using ftp.  This
> would seem to consist of (1) a directory structure (thus 'container'),
> (2) static html pages, (3) files of arbitrary content (this would,
> IMO, include images).  At this level I'm not sure there's any
> functional difference between (2) and (3).

True.  I was thinking that images and other files might be separate 
types, but they can really be represented by the same type.  Only two 
types (folder and file) are needed.

> So suppose these objects in Static were really dumb objects suitable
> only for static content, with smarter, specialized cousins residing
> in the Content package?  Does having a Static package provide any
> positive benefit?

Having two simple, highly reusable types is good.  It makes Zope easier 
to learn and gives you something to fall back on.  It fulfills people's 
expectation to be able to upload a static site.

Shane