[Zope-dev] ComponentArchitecture thoughts

[Jim Fulton]

Tim McLaughlin wrote:
> 
> I guess in synopsis, I also kinda have the opinion of "if it ain't broke,
> don't fix it."  And since I can build Python products and see other people
> doing it, I imagine them not to be broken...  I'll leave that where it is
> because it's really a subjective position.
> 
> As far as ZClasses go, they are definitely useful as they are, but I think
> they could be more functional.  As an example of their usefulness, I've had
> my HTML productions guys (not developers) using them with great success, and
> they have relatively little understanding of OOD or Python.

I'm really glad to hear that you've found them useful.  When I started
working on them, I had fairly simple but not well thought through
goals for them. There was a good deal of scope creep that led, in part
to their complexity.  

At some point, I'd really like to take another look at ZClasses and better
define their goals and uses, and, thus, to correct a lot of the shortcomings
they have now.  

>  They are
> definitely limiting for the developer, but I think they play a valuable role
> in Zope, and something similar should always exist.

And it will.

> Anyway, after the thoughts are assembled, how does ZC imagine that these new
> Components will fit into the existing architecture.  Will they coexist with
> the OFS package? 

Yes.  Existing Zope objects will continue to work fine.

> Or replace it? 

It will augment it.

> It seems that backward compatibility could
> easily be maintained by coexistence.

Yup.

Jim

--
Jim Fulton           mailto:jim@digicool.com   Python Powered!        
Technical Director   (888) 344-4332            http://www.python.org  
Zope Corporation     http://www.zope.com       http://www.zope.org