[Zope3-dev] Re: Putting pullparser and clientform where they belong (reverting 39890)

[Derrick Hudson]

On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 10:10:52AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
| Martijn Faassen wrote:
| >Jim Fulton wrote:
[...]
| >>I'm guessing that this is an issue because you install
| >>Zope's into site-packages and you don't want a Zope installed
| >>package to clobber a package that is separately packaged. Is that right?
| >>
| >>The normal way to install Zope is in it's own directory.  In this case,
| >>a package supplied with Zope only affects Zope.  In which case, I don't
| >>see the need to rip it out.  
| >
| >While it's true that this is normal for you and me, I think the cause of 
| >"zope is just a library" is much helped if we *also* consider it normal 
| >for Zope to be installed into site-packages.
| 
| I'm not convinced that Zope is "just a library".  Certainly,
| the zope package is just a library, but I don't think that
| the app server is.
[...]
| So, I reiterate that we should distinguish between releases of Zope
| packages and releases of the application server.  I'm pretty convinced
| that the app server is *not* a library and shouldn't be treated as such.

Hmm.  What about this notion:  the app server is a library, and the
zope instance is the application.  The zope instance is not installed
in site-packages, it is in /srv.  This seems to make some sense to me,
and also happens to be how the current (3.1.0) zope3 package is in
debian.

However, that would make it difficult to have more than one version of
zope installed concurrently (for the same version of python).  Then
again, for a production system this wouldn't be an issue because the
version of zope won't be changing.  If new versions are backwards
compatible then normally upgrading the one-and-only zope version
wouldn't be a problem for users, particularly if the add-on packages
are also provided by the distribution.

Just some thoughts for consideration.

-D

-- 
\begin{humor}
Disclaimer:
If I receive a message from you, you are agreeing that:
   1. I am by definition, "the intended recipient"
   2. All information in the email is mine to do with as I see fit and make
        such financial profit, political mileage, or good joke as it lends
        itself to. In particular, I may quote it on USENET or the WWW.
   3. I may take the contents as representing the views of your company.
   4. This overrides any disclaimer or statement of confidentiality that may
        be included on your message
\end{humor}
 
www: http://dman13.dyndns.org/~dman/            jabber: dman at dman13.dyndns.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope3-dev/attachments/20060110/ebfd26d5/attachment.bin