Re: [Zope3-Users] how to handle Zope maintenance a couple of years from now?
Thanks, Chris I agree with you on most counts! I will add that in my limited interaction with it, I found grok "beautiful". I need to rethink on this from scratch. Fortunately I have time till the end of the year to help ourselves decide. I was not aware of Thierry's ZTFY. I will definitely look at it and take one more at Grok. I have just read about Zopache a few days ago. - One of our largest applications is in Zope3, and another is in Zope2. However, in both cases the domain modelling complexity and SVG based UIs (and the need to thwart screen-scrapers from getting at the raw data) outweighed the architectural issues. Yes, for the Zope2 project we did use TTW a lot, used DTML and ZPT in tandem, and acquisition too. The GAE project is straighforward, with Google's object database, ZPT... partly it was ported from Grok. But I will have to dig up the old documentation before I can answer your questions with confidence. Thanks, again. Regards, Milind. On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Christopher Lozinski < lozin...@freerecruiting.com> wrote: > > On 9/7/14, 6:56 AM, Milind Khadilkar wrote: > >Hi, > > > I have one large Zope2 (Zope 2.6) project, one large Zope3 (Zope 3.4) > project, two medium sized Grok projects, one GAE project, allof them need > to... be redeveloped using ONE single framework. > > Any suggestions? > > In general the following guidelines apply. If it is heavily relational > database/ URL dispatch dependent, go with Pyramid. If it is pure file > system python with traversal, go with the simpler Grok. if you are doing a > lot of TTW work, acquisition and Zope 2 Security interface, then your best > option is Zopache on top of Grok. Of course real world situations are not > so clear. An informed choice would take the following factors into > account. > > How many lines of code/classes are there in each application? What > security model are you using in each case? View based or traversal based? > Do you need the Zope 2 user interface for configuring security? How much > code is done Through The Web, (TTW), and how much on the files system. > Are you using Acquisition? For TTW code, which classes are you using? > DTML? Zclasses? How is the GAE application architected? Is it even Zope > compatible, or is it a relational database and URL dispatch kind of > application? > > Given the answers to those questions, it should be quite clear what your > best strategy will be. > > My first choice (mainly because I have a complex Zope3 project to > redevelop) would be Bluebream, even if it means using ZCML > > If you are going to start with BlueBream, better to start with the > ZTFY.org. and wiki.ztfy,org. I wrote most of that wiki. It is a much > more modern and up to date than the most recent bluebream distribution. > > Better yet, hire Thierry the author of ZTFY. Let him work from Paris. He > indicated that his current project is coming to an end. My highest > respect for that man and all he has accomplished. His tech support was > brilliant.I kid you not, he would be at lest 10 times more productive > than any Indian developer you might hire and try to train. It would take a > few years to train someone to replace him.The man thinks in > Interfaces. > > So ZTFY is better than BlueBream. But using Grok is better than straight > ZTFY. Why? > > While you and Thierry have had good experience with ZCML, let me assure > you I have tried bluebream, ZTFY, and Grok, and Grok is way way easier. > Ask anyone who has done both approaches. ChrisM the author of Pyramid > wrote an excellent analysis of the difficulty with ZCML in the top part of > defense of Pyramid > http://docs.pylonsproject.org/docs/pyramid/en/latest/designdefense.html > > Do read it. Particularly in your case, where you talk about hiring new > developers and training them. Grok hugely simplifies application > configuration. It feels just like writing regular python code. And > reducing the conceptual burden on new developers is a huge issue in this > Zope world. Of course if you go with a senior developer like Thierry, then > starting with ZTFY is acceptable. Although I would argue that even > seasoned zope developers would be more productive in Grok. > > Now what about your Zope 2 application? > > You said your largest application is the Zope 2 application. Are you > using acquisition? Lots of TTW stuff? Clicking on tables to define > security. Then Zopache.com with Grok is the tool for you.Zopache is > the cultural inheritor of those software approaches. > > Anyhow I was quite serious about my questions at the top of this email. A > bit more information about your applications and how they are architected > would help enormously in figuring out what you should be doing. > > > Hope that helps. > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
Re: [Zope3-Users] So, there is going to be no Zope4... how to handle maintenance a couple of years from now?
Thanks, Jim, for your responses! These thoughts from you deserve a larger readership than this thread provides. I think I will restart thinking on this from scratch. Thanks, again. -Milind On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Jim Fulton wrote: > On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 4:44 AM, Milind Khadilkar > wrote: > > Thanks, Thierry. > > I think the real problem with ZCA and ZCML is "bad press". We did not > face > > any ZCML problem when we worked on the Zope3 projects. It was later, > > thankfully, that we came across the negative opinion. ZCA did require a > > mindset change for some, but more often than not it has helped them in > their > > future work on other platforms too. > > But that was 10 years ago... Don't know about now. > > I'm proud of the ZCA in many ways, but: > > - ZCA was designed for problems that most people don't or shouldn't have, > which is making a complex application pluggable. > > If your application is complex, that's a problem > > http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/ > > - In the Zope 3 project, we used the CA way more than we should > have. Initially, this was to prove that we could. Once we were > convinced that every (damn) thing could be pluggable we should > have stopped and simplified, using the ZCA only where needed. > Instead, we'd established a culture of crazy levels of indirection. > > - Outrageous indirection in the base system made starting new projects > either super difficult, an exercise in cargo-cult-programming, or both. > > I've come to the conclusion that any framework that requires or > encourages its users to use project-templates or project-setup > wizards isn't something I want to use. > > I stopped using Zope 3 several years ago when I realized that the > weight of the framework wasn't justified by it's benefits, at least for > me. > > I've decided that I'd rather use decoupled frameworks that, ideally, > are simple to learn and use individually. That's why I use bobo now, > http://bobo.digicool.com. A more conventional choice along the same > lines would be Flask, although I think bobo is simpler. (Of course, I'm > biased. :) > > I still use the ZCA, especially zope.event, but in a wildly lighter-weight > fashion than I did in Zope 3. > > Part of the reason I prefer simpler server frameworks today is that > Web applications are far more client centered today than they were > when I worked on Zope 2 and even Zope 3. Today, for applications > (as opposed to content *sites*), UI logic, including templating, mostly > happens on the client, and web servers are largely REST/RPC/Database > servers. > > Jim > > P.S. If you find the ZCA interesting, you should check out Scala and it's >implicits and type-level programming. It does many of the same >things as the ZCA at compile time. It's crazy beautiful and evil all >at the same time. :) > > -- > Jim Fulton > http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton > ___ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
Re: [Zope3-Users] So, there is going to be no Zope4... how to handle maintenance a couple of years from now?
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 4:44 AM, Milind Khadilkar wrote: > Thanks, Thierry. > I think the real problem with ZCA and ZCML is "bad press". We did not face > any ZCML problem when we worked on the Zope3 projects. It was later, > thankfully, that we came across the negative opinion. ZCA did require a > mindset change for some, but more often than not it has helped them in their > future work on other platforms too. > But that was 10 years ago... Don't know about now. I'm proud of the ZCA in many ways, but: - ZCA was designed for problems that most people don't or shouldn't have, which is making a complex application pluggable. If your application is complex, that's a problem http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/ - In the Zope 3 project, we used the CA way more than we should have. Initially, this was to prove that we could. Once we were convinced that every (damn) thing could be pluggable we should have stopped and simplified, using the ZCA only where needed. Instead, we'd established a culture of crazy levels of indirection. - Outrageous indirection in the base system made starting new projects either super difficult, an exercise in cargo-cult-programming, or both. I've come to the conclusion that any framework that requires or encourages its users to use project-templates or project-setup wizards isn't something I want to use. I stopped using Zope 3 several years ago when I realized that the weight of the framework wasn't justified by it's benefits, at least for me. I've decided that I'd rather use decoupled frameworks that, ideally, are simple to learn and use individually. That's why I use bobo now, http://bobo.digicool.com. A more conventional choice along the same lines would be Flask, although I think bobo is simpler. (Of course, I'm biased. :) I still use the ZCA, especially zope.event, but in a wildly lighter-weight fashion than I did in Zope 3. Part of the reason I prefer simpler server frameworks today is that Web applications are far more client centered today than they were when I worked on Zope 2 and even Zope 3. Today, for applications (as opposed to content *sites*), UI logic, including templating, mostly happens on the client, and web servers are largely REST/RPC/Database servers. Jim P.S. If you find the ZCA interesting, you should check out Scala and it's implicits and type-level programming. It does many of the same things as the ZCA at compile time. It's crazy beautiful and evil all at the same time. :) -- Jim Fulton http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton ___ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
Re: [Zope3-Users] So, there is going to be no Zope4... how to handle maintenance a couple of years from now?
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Thierry Florac wrote: > > Hi, > > I think ZCA doesn't do "so much more" than implement a few object design > patterns and provide a very flexible components registry framework. > I'm working mainly on developing new framework-like packages and I just > can't work without it except by re-inventing it! > > Many users blame ZCML just because it's XML ! As well they should! 0.5 ;) > But it's just configuration, and separating configuration from > Python code is one of the greatest benefits of ZCML, mainly while > working on huge projects. The XML format is just a detail and is > probably not so worse than many INI-like or text based configuration > format; and at least it's a de-facto standard. When I started working on zcml, it used a very light-weight but custom syntax. I was talked in to using XML by someone who later complained about it. :) I regret not sticking with the lighter weight syntax. Jim P.S. ZCML uses a pretty lightweight style of XML, relying more on attributes than on nested elements. Ironically/typically I was criticized for this by XML purists. -- Jim Fulton http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton ___ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
Re: [Zope3-Users] how to handle Zope maintenance a couple of years from now?
On 9/7/14, 6:56 AM, Milind Khadilkar wrote: > Hi, > > > I have one large Zope2 (Zope 2.6) project, one large Zope3 (Zope 3.4) > project, two medium sized Grok projects, one GAE project, allof them > need to... be redeveloped using ONE single framework. Any suggestions? In general the following guidelines apply. If it is heavily relational database/ URL dispatch dependent, go with Pyramid. If it is pure file system python with traversal, go with the simpler Grok. if you are doing a lot of TTW work, acquisition and Zope 2 Security interface, then your best option is Zopache on top of Grok. Of course real world situations are not so clear. An informed choice would take the following factors into account. How many lines of code/classes are there in each application? What security model are you using in each case? View based or traversal based? Do you need the Zope 2 user interface for configuring security? How much code is done Through The Web, (TTW), and how much on the files system. Are you using Acquisition? For TTW code, which classes are you using? DTML? Zclasses? How is the GAE application architected? Is it even Zope compatible, or is it a relational database and URL dispatch kind of application? Given the answers to those questions, it should be quite clear what your best strategy will be. My first choice (mainly because I have a complex Zope3 project to redevelop) would be Bluebream, even if it means using ZCML If you are going to start with BlueBream, better to start with the ZTFY.org. and wiki.ztfy,org. I wrote most of that wiki. It is a much more modern and up to date than the most recent bluebream distribution. Better yet, hire Thierry the author of ZTFY. Let him work from Paris. He indicated that his current project is coming to an end. My highest respect for that man and all he has accomplished. His tech support was brilliant.I kid you not, he would be at lest 10 times more productive than any Indian developer you might hire and try to train. It would take a few years to train someone to replace him.The man thinks in Interfaces. So ZTFY is better than BlueBream. But using Grok is better than straight ZTFY. Why? While you and Thierry have had good experience with ZCML, let me assure you I have tried bluebream, ZTFY, and Grok, and Grok is way way easier. Ask anyone who has done both approaches. ChrisM the author of Pyramid wrote an excellent analysis of the difficulty with ZCML in the top part of defense of Pyramid http://docs.pylonsproject.org/docs/pyramid/en/latest/designdefense.html Do read it. Particularly in your case, where you talk about hiring new developers and training them. Grok hugely simplifies application configuration. It feels just like writing regular python code. And reducing the conceptual burden on new developers is a huge issue in this Zope world. Of course if you go with a senior developer like Thierry, then starting with ZTFY is acceptable. Although I would argue that even seasoned zope developers would be more productive in Grok. Now what about your Zope 2 application? You said your largest application is the Zope 2 application. Are you using acquisition? Lots of TTW stuff? Clicking on tables to define security. Then Zopache.com with Grok is the tool for you.Zopache is the cultural inheritor of those software approaches. Anyhow I was quite serious about my questions at the top of this email. A bit more information about your applications and how they are architected would help enormously in figuring out what you should be doing. Hope that helps. Chris ___ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
Re: [Zope3-Users] So, there is going to be no Zope4... how to handle maintenance a couple of years from now?
Hi, I think ZCA doesn't do "so much more" than implement a few object design patterns and provide a very flexible components registry framework. I'm working mainly on developing new framework-like packages and I just can't work without it except by re-inventing it! Many users blame ZCML just because it's XML ! But it's just configuration, and separating configuration from Python code is one of the greatest benefits of ZCML, mainly while working on huge projects. The XML format is just a detail and is probably not so worse than many INI-like or text based configuration format; and at least it's a de-facto standard. Regards, Thierry Le Sun, 7 Sep 2014 14:14:14 +0530, Milind Khadilkar a écrit: > Thanks, Thierry. > I think the real problem with ZCA and ZCML is "bad press". We did not > face any ZCML problem when we worked on the Zope3 projects. It was > later, thankfully, that we came across the negative opinion. ZCA did > require a mindset change for some, but more often than not it has > helped them in their future work on other platforms too. > But that was 10 years ago... Don't know about now. > > Regards, > Milind > > > On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Thierry Florac > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > Le Sun, 7 Sep 2014 09:26:43 +0530, > > Milind Khadilkar a écrit: > > > > > Seems there will be no Zope4. Puts a fond hope to rest. > > > > > > I have one large Zope2 (Zope 2.6) project, one large Zope3 (Zope > > > 3.4) project, two medium sized Grok projects, one GAE project, > > > allof them need to be maintained beyond two years. > > > I would like, if possible, to redevelop them using ONE single > > > framework. While some of the original developers are available, > > > most work would need to be done through people who need to be > > > trained from the ground up. > > > > > > My first choice (mainly because I have a complex Zope3 project to > > > redevelop) would be Bluebream, even if it means using ZCML and > > > programming in ZCA-shackles. But I am speaking without any real > > > experience of it. (Negative press ensured that I did not go for > > > it...) > > > > > > Any suggestions? > > > > If you are considering a complete re-development, maybe you should > > have a look at Pyramid. > > It allows you to reuse a lot of Zope related technologies, including > > ZODB, traversing and even ZCA ! ;-) > > > > I use and develop ZTFY which is based on Bluebream (with updated > > packages based on ZTK) and which is used in many of my own projects > > with great success, but which is probably condamned to death in a > > relatively near future... > > > > Regards, > > Thierry > > > > > > P.S.: by the way, I don't really understand where is the real > > problem with ZCA (which is so powerful, and not so complicated!) > > and with ZCML (which is nothing in XML files terms compared to any > > "serious" Java server development environment...) ___ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
Re: [Zope3-Users] So, there is going to be no Zope4... how to handle maintenance a couple of years from now?
Thanks, Thierry. I think the real problem with ZCA and ZCML is "bad press". We did not face any ZCML problem when we worked on the Zope3 projects. It was later, thankfully, that we came across the negative opinion. ZCA did require a mindset change for some, but more often than not it has helped them in their future work on other platforms too. But that was 10 years ago... Don't know about now. Regards, Milind On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Thierry Florac wrote: > > Hi, > > Le Sun, 7 Sep 2014 09:26:43 +0530, > Milind Khadilkar a écrit: > > > Seems there will be no Zope4. Puts a fond hope to rest. > > > > I have one large Zope2 (Zope 2.6) project, one large Zope3 (Zope 3.4) > > project, two medium sized Grok projects, one GAE project, allof them > > need to be maintained beyond two years. > > I would like, if possible, to redevelop them using ONE single > > framework. While some of the original developers are available, most > > work would need to be done through people who need to be trained from > > the ground up. > > > > My first choice (mainly because I have a complex Zope3 project to > > redevelop) would be Bluebream, even if it means using ZCML and > > programming in ZCA-shackles. But I am speaking without any real > > experience of it. (Negative press ensured that I did not go for it...) > > > > Any suggestions? > > If you are considering a complete re-development, maybe you should have > a look at Pyramid. > It allows you to reuse a lot of Zope related technologies, including > ZODB, traversing and even ZCA ! ;-) > > I use and develop ZTFY which is based on Bluebream (with updated > packages based on ZTK) and which is used in many of my own projects > with great success, but which is probably condamned to death in a > relatively near future... > > Regards, > Thierry > > > P.S.: by the way, I don't really understand where is the real problem > with ZCA (which is so powerful, and not so complicated!) and with ZCML > (which is nothing in XML files terms compared to any "serious" Java > server development environment...) > ___ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
