On Sunday 01 February 2004 11:00 am, Lennart Regebro wrote:
OK, I get what you are tring to do (I think) and yes, I think Zope would be an excellent base for that. I do think that the real-time applications needed should "by-pass" Zope for the real-time work, so that you only commit to Zope for storage.
Yeah, that's sounds like the right design decision. I'll have to see if somebody actually wants to write a MOO with ZODB backend, of course. ;-) As regards the "must play well with Zope OFS" constraint, *does* that actually create much of a constraint with ZODB? In other words, if I were to designate an object within the Zope OFS as the top-level object for the MOO, would it then be reasonable to have Zope able to traverse into the MOO? If so, then we start to get into the "mult-server" model that Zope uses already (e.g. HTTP, Webdav, FTP, and XML-RPC are all currently supported, MOO would just be an extra server using the same ZODB). Add a plugin MOO client (or even a standalone that can be launched from the browser), and we approach a situation where the users can just segue into MOO mode if the situation calls for it (and possibly users without MOO clients can participate through the HTTP mechanism). Terry -- Terry Hancock ( hancock at anansispaceworks.com ) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.anansispaceworks.com