Malthe Borch wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
I've been working on a new web framework named (provisionally) repoze.bfg.
This looks very interesting; I'd be curious to see if this could be useful for Vudo. I'd like it very much if Vudo could sit on top of a more general framework (not just the Zope 3 libraries).
Early on, the idea was that this could be Grok, but it quickly turned out that Grok makes too many assumptions for our use.
I recently pasted a basic Pylons application and it gives you something that I think would be attractive in a Zope/Vudo/Bfg-based setup: A canonical directory structure, e.g.
./templates ./routers ./config
etc. (can't remember the details)
Sure. I think one of us (maybe Paul?) signed up to write a PasteScript template to lay out a directory structure something like this. We don't currently provide an easy way to serve out a static directory full of content. We'd need to add that (or decide not to add it in favor of letting a separate "resource" server serve the static stuff).
Perhaps this could benefit the following scenario:
-- Set me up with a new Zope/Vudo/Bfg-application and give me some starting points.
If Bfg can provide the lower layer, then I think Vudo will be great for providing the higher layers, e.g.
-- skinning -- content types and widgets -- authoring -- admin
Sounds good to me. The plans are to keep BFG mostly policy-agnostic save for the very basics (graph traversal, a default templating language, and a calling and response convention for views). I had planned to create another package named repoze.lemonade which: - Wired in ZODB - Defined base classes for folderish and leafish types. - Had an object add/remove/move event model. - Did indexing of content. It sounds like Vudo could either build on top of that or just *be* that. It might be better to continue layering stuff, I suppose, without going "straight to the content management layer". Would it be appropriate for Vudo to build on something like that? What would Vudo need out of a framework? - C