[Zope3-dev] IMPORTANT RFS: Through the Web Site Development

[Casey Duncan]

On Tuesday 14 January 2003 11:08 am, Shane Hathaway wrote:
> Casey Duncan wrote:
> > On Monday 13 January 2003 07:36 am, Jim Fulton wrote:
> >=20
> >>I've written some science fiction documentation:
> >>
> >>   http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ThroughTheWebSiteDevelopment
> >>
> >>that sketches out a model for site development in Zope 3.
> >>
> >>I really need feedback on this. Comments are more than welcome.
> >>Feel free to comment here or on the wiki page.
> >=20
> >=20
> > This to me seems like a huge diversion to handle a few special cases =
and=20
> > reinvent something we can already do through Python, ZCML and ZPT on =
the=20
file=20
> > system.=20
> >=20
> > The curmugeon in me sees a lot of technology in here to reinvent some=
thing=20
> > that we as a community have spent (and continue to spend) a lot of ti=
me=20
and=20
> > energy debunking.
> >=20
> > In more concrete terms, do we we really need this for Zope 3.0? Or is=
 it=20
just=20
> > a potential "nice to have"?
>=20
> Well, I think this proposal is being wildly misinterpreted. :-)
>=20
> This proposal, and packaging in general, is really all about=20
> configuration management.  It addresses questions such as:
>=20
> - How do I ensure all nodes of a ZEO cluster are running the same softw=
are?

This is a reasonable task that is solvable on the file system. It would=20
probably need to be anyway even with TTW modules.
=20
> - How do I update the software that my site is based on without losing=20
> local customizations?

Doesn't ZCML and file based package management already take care of this?

> - How do I turn my local customizations into a packaged configuration=20
> that can be installed on the production site?

Copy the files and restart ;^)
=20
> - How do I make redistributable software with a nice "out of the box"=20
> experience?

Tar the files and write a little README with an example of the ZCML/ZConf=
ig=20
directives needed to integrate it.
=20
> - How do I allow both programmers and non-programmers to work on the=20
> same project, while each uses the interface they are most comfortable=20
> with?  Programmers often prefer a text editor, while non-programmers=20
> often prefer a GUI.

The filesystem lets you use whatever tool you want. I see TTW dev being m=
ore=20
limiting in this regard, external editor not withstanding. Who *wants* to=
 use=20
a web gui? Futhermore who *wants* to make one?
=20
> CMF uses the filesystem-based solution to these questions.  It fails in=
=20
> many ways.  The solution proposed is not very complicated, but=20
> admittedly it is nothing like Zope 2's solutions.  You really have to=20
> forget all Zope 2 notions of configuration management while reading the=
=20
> proposal.

Yup, actually you're going to need to forget about Zope 2 anyway. And I'm=
=20
certainly not advocating reinventing CMF paradigms. I'm just approaching =
this=20
with a healthy does of skepticism, perhaps even cynicism, unfortunately.

-Casey