[Zope-dev] ZClass not in a Product

[Dieter Maurer]

Joachim Werner writes:
 > I know about the "duality" of Python classes. I just don't see what I could
 > really do with a ZClass in the "instance space" (reading this twice, see
 > below for some possible examples). A totally different aspect is whether
 > Zope should have something like an in-built support for "virtual instances",
 > i.e. sub-folders could be like full Zope instances, providing a local
 > Products directory etc.
To clarify, you use "instance" here in the spirit of "Zope instance"
a-la "INSTANCE_HOME" and not in the sense of "instance" of a class...

That would probably be a good thing.

 > I am more in favor of getting things OUT of the instance folders than
 > getting more stuff in.
That is completely different from what I would like to do.

 > It makes absolutely no sense to me why the Zope management interface
 > displays database adaptors, user folders,  and actual content objects all in
 > the same folder.
It makes lots of sense for me!

  Consider a large site hosting many applications, partly
  developed and maintained by different people/departments.

  It is very nice to be able to structure the site hierarchy
  into folders corresponding to appliciations and allow each 
  team responsible for an application to put in
  everything they need for the implementation:

    database adapters, additional user definitions,
    special roles, ZClasses, ....

  Zope already allows this partially. Unfortunately, the
  product registry is global and not managed similar
  to user folders.

  Your proposed "virtual instances" would be an alternative
  solution. I could live with it, though I would not
  think it is better.

 > ....
 > To come back to the ZClass question: I see and use them mainly as templates.
 > That's what they are good for. So they should reside in a template folder.
 > Right now, this folder is the Products folder. Maybe we need local
 > Products/Templates folders, so that it is possible to have ZClasses that
 > just work locally or that overload a base ZClass defined up in the tree. But
 > what we definitely don't need is freely floating ZClasses.
I am much in favor to structure objects *NOT* according to type
(e.g. all images in a folder, all SQL methods in a folder,
all Scripts in a folder, ...) but according to
applications/services:

  One folder for each service which contains everything needed
  only for this service: images, scripts, SQL methods, content,
  ZClasses, ....

  There are things that are used more globally. They may
  go into type specific folders.

 > ...


Dieter