[Zope] Zope Alternative

[Andreas Jung]

--On 15. November 2006 07:35:48 -0800 Hafeliel <hafeliel at yahoo.com> wrote:

> My thanks to everyone who took the time to reply.
>
> Here's what I'm hearing:
>
> [1] Many of you agree that the Zope Book is woefully
> incomplete.  Paul, for example, was kind enough to
> point out that the Image class is a descendent of the
> Persistent class.
>
> I opened my Zope Book back up to see how I could have
> missed this, and as I expected, the book doesn't show
> this ancestorage.  In fact, the Persistent class isn't
> listed in Appendix B at all.
>
> [2] Some of you felt that it is acceptable that Zope's
> "complete docs" are scattered across the web.  I
> disagree.  The Zope Book should be complete if it's
> going to pretend to be the docs for Zope.
>
> The docs for Python, for example, seem to be complete.
>  You might have to surf around a bit to find an
> example that does what you want, but you don't have to
> dig into the source for Python just to find out what
> methods are available to a given class! That's not
> acceptable IMHO.

This thread is about your wiki, not about the docs. That's a
different story.

>
> [3] Many of you have attacked me personally.
> <sarcasm> Gee, thanks. </sarcasm>  I am not a troll.
> A troll is a person who takes only a minute to toss a
> match into dry brush so he can watch the fire break
> out.  I, on the other hand, am trying to create
> something.  I'm investing my time by creating a wiki,
> I'm soliciting advice from people who know more about
> Zope than I do (you guys), I'm writing code, and I'm
> trying to create something better.
>
> By calling me names, you've essentially elevated Zope
> to the stature of a religion and are branding me a
> heretic for daring to question it.  That's not how an
> open source community should work.
>
> If you do not like the direction I'm headed, then by
> all means, do not follow.  Stick with Zope and enjoy
> it, but I personally think that a light-weight
> alternative that doesn't protect us from doing what we
> want to do would be better.

Zope 2 is likely the wrong tool for you because it is too huge, too complex
or because it just does not fit your brain. Because of the number of wrong
facts in your wiki you would better use something easier like Django, 
Turbogears, Zope 3. You want something small and light, the Python world
has several alternatives that might fit your needs.

>
> How big is a Zope install, 20M?  I'm not at my home PC
> at the moment, so I can't check.  I'm betting that all
> the good stuff Zope really needs could fit in 50k.
> That leaves a 19.95M barrier to entry.  I feel that
> all this overhead is some of what is keeping people
> away from Zope.

Zope 2 is a huge framework. Don't compare it to *programming
languages* like PHP. Complex frameworks require some intelligence
and personal efforts.

>
> [4] Many of you hate the wiki.  My apologies.  Rome
> wasn't built in a day.  A good wiki is good because so
> many people contribute to it.  Until more people
> contribute, you can only expect so much.

Rome was build on solid stones, not on wrong facts.



>
> [5] Several of you defended Zope by saying that it
> evolved to be the beast that it is.  Frankly, that's a
> terrible reason to live with a mess.  Sometimes it
> takes starting over to get going in the right
> direction.

If you think it is a mess than provide evidence based on true facts.
The wiki is created with a bunch of ignorance.


>
> [6] You're right that I'm totally ignorant about Zope
> 3.  I've never played with it.  I will try to make
> some time for that.  However, my gripes with the
> original Zope is that there is too much.  I really
> just want the Zope basics.  Adding more to Zope will
> not make me happier.

Take Zope 3. It's pluggable and highly adaptable. Zope 2 is not
for you .

>
> That's why I'm pushing to making it an Apache module.
> Apache is wildly popular and used in a tremendous
> number of servers.  It already does most everything,
> so why re-invent the wheel?  Let's just add on the few
> missing pieces so we can give developers the tools
> they need to build the rest of the car.

Must we care?

>
> As for me, personally, I'm going to press on making a
> Zope alternative.  I don't mean it as any insult to
> anyone who loves Zope.

Go, go, go and reinvent wheels. You are blind because you don't see the
alternatives that are available.


>
> A buddy of mine drew some parallels to an SQL product
> he uses.  Someone created an SQL Lite version of it
> for people who don't need all of the SQL's advanced
> features.  By doing so, it was not an insult to those
> who created the SQL program in the first place.  It
> was merely an alternative for projects where the Lite
> version was better suited.

Yes, go and build yet another Python web framework.
We have already more web frameworks than keywords in Python.
I dedicate the new Python 2.5 keyword "with" to your new
framework. The world really don't need another Python web
framework. With have two solid frameworks like Django and TG, and
Zope 2 and Zope 3...enough for the whole world

>
> So follow if you dare, help if you'd like, but shout
> your insults at my back.  I see no reason to stick
> around a community that treats me like this when I'm
> only trying to help.


Please open your eyes, look around and find all the fine
Python frameworks that are already available. Pick them up, help improving 
them.

-aj
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope/attachments/20061115/09335f71/attachment.bin