Looking for Zope vs. Others at-a-glance comparison
Richard Moon says:
Zope offers the potential to be the perfect development environment with tons of really good solutions off the shelf - these can be customised if they have to, we can drop down to Python if we really need to. Perfect.
Unfortunately its been difficult to get discussions like this going on zope.org as its mainly devoted to coding problems, while zope-dev is to do with deep and complex zopezen.
Many very helpful goodies have been contributed, and are available under "Downloads". However, as we've seen so often, documentation is the last thing on the priority list, so these gems are mostly still quite rough. It looks like a great deal of value can be added to Zope in the form of ultra-easy integration of stuff that already exists, and step-by-step, "hold my hand" How-To docs to makes sure even the greenest Newbies can make the most of what's there. Thanks for all the cogent comments! Jerry S.
At 14:15 12/09/00 -0500, you wrote:
Many very helpful goodies have been contributed, and are available under "Downloads". However, as we've seen so often, documentation is the last thing on the priority list, so these gems are mostly still quite rough.
It looks like a great deal of value can be added to Zope in the form of ultra-easy integration of stuff that already exists, and step-by-step, "hold my hand" How-To docs to makes sure even the greenest Newbies can make the most of what's there.
Agree completely. I was very disappointed when saw the latest release of the PTK needs a compilation of a C program. That's a real backward step. There's also differences in tarballs creeping in - there's one product (is it SQL Session) which you have to put in the /Products directory under Zope while others you unpack at the top level Zope directory. Perhaps there should be someone producing an 'approved' list of products that meet certain standards of ease of installation, documentation etc.
Thanks for all the cogent comments! Jerry S.
Richard Moon wrote:
Agree completely. I was very disappointed when saw the latest release of the PTK needs a compilation of a C program. That's a real backward step.
That's not or shouldn't be the case. By 'C program', I presume you mean the dynpersist module requried my LoginManager: 1. LoginManager, AFAIK, is now optional for the PTK. 2. ZPatterns, and hence LoginManager, will no longer need this in the near future. It was only actually needed for Zope 2.1.x compatability, IIUC. That said, Zope could do with a decent product installation management system. There's a proposal for this on dev.zope.org, though :-)
There's also differences in tarballs creeping in - there's one product (is it SQL Session) which you have to put in the /Products directory under Zope while others you unpack at the top level Zope directory.
This is the 'new' way of doing things that works with INSTANCE_HOME installations. SiteAccess 2 and Squishdot 0.7.2+ are also packaged like this. cheers, Chris
participants (3)
-
Chris Withers -
Richard Moon -
Spicklemire, Jerry