[Zope] Zope vs CVS (Re: [ZDP] OpenContent issues)

[Alex Rice]

On Wed, 19 May 1999 09:18:52 -0400,
Jim Fulton <jim@digicool.com> said:

[stuff about CVS...]

Jim> Zope, on the other hand, is transaction oriented.  Zope tracks
Jim> meta-data for transactions, not individual objects.  This is a much
Jim> saner approach, IMO.

Yes, one thing that Smalltalk and more recently, Java Beans, have taught
us is that the file and directory structure was really just an artifact
of the editing process. (Die-hard C and Makefile coders probably will
disagree) Abstracting away from the filesystem or leaving it behind
completely allows you much greater freedom. For example see a Smalltalk
environment like Visual Works or Squeak, or for Java, IBM Visual Age for
Java.

The reason I'm kind of chiming in here, is that as a total Zope/Python
newbie, it's kind of consfusing as a developer how Zope relates to my
filesystem. Granted, the idea of a URL representing an object, method
and parameters is very intuitive and appealing.

But from a development point of view, it's it little rough going
figuring out the alternatives to just typing DTML in an HTML
form. Import and Export only can use pickled python objects right? In
Visual Age you can import/export source code, compiled code, or archived
code.

In Zope the other methods add more complexity: FTP support is rough or
broken, WebDAV is coming soon, Netscape PUT is rumored to work, not that
great. I have no idea how all these ways of editing zope objects map
into the "transaction oriented" model which you speak of.

Alex Rice    |    alrice@swcp.com    |    http://www.swcp.com/~alrice
    Current Location: N. Rio Grande Bioregion, Southwestern USA