On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 11:00:11AM -0500, Chris Kratz wrote:
Now, if using svn for source control is the only reason he was using APE, surely you'd agree that DirecotyViews are a more appropriate method?
cheers,
Chris
Yes, you are more or less correct. The primary reason we went to APE was after having tried the nightmares of the various zope cvs products which just seemed to be able to tie themselves into knots after awhile. APElib allowed us to persist all objects as plain text files on the file system so that normal file system tools can be used for development. After we went to APE we moved from CVS to subversion. Now most of us develop using a text editor directly modifying our zope objects. We have the refresh interval dialed down to 1s on our dev boxes and 5-10 minutes on the live servers. This allows us to easily shoehorn minor patches (fix - commit - update server) without any service interruption on the live server. So, our reasons for using Apelib were...
1. Allow use of source control (branching, diffs, revision history, etc) on all content types as plain text files, not python pickles. 2. Allow editing of zope objects (DTML, ZPT, ZSQL, py script) externally in appropriate editor. 3. Allow us to quickly push out minor patches to running servers. 4. A distant final item was using TTW editing to do minor tweaks.
DirectoryViews would mean you'd lose #4. Otherwise, I think they'd work for you and it's a much simpler solution than ape. Also, if you have any persistent objects for which there isn't an existing FSObject-derived version, you'd have to write one. Another issue is that AFAIK there's no way to control the refresh interval of FSObject subclasses. I guess you could monkeypatch FSObject._updateFromFS. You might want to do that anyway so you don't have to run your production servers in debug mode. -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com