On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 05:13:57PM -0700, Jeff Shell wrote: > On 3/6/06, Paul Winkler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A similar app could've been written pretty quickly in Zope 3 by writing > > a schema and using browser:addform, browser:editform, and > > browser:schemadisplay. It would be interesting to see how that would go > > in the movie. I suspect that the movie author (named Sean Kelly i > > think?) would've complained about the xml "sit-ups" and the numerous > > server restarts. > > Those are bad options anyways. They do not have growth potential > either, as you then have to make the conceptual leap from "something > magically generated by this XML declaration" into "how do I customize > what happens on edit?"
Actually I agree with you. Dynamic scaffolding has the same problems I was complaining about re. TTW development: it does a bunch of magic that you have to understand and know how to do from scratch the moment you want to go beyond it. In that paragraph I was only trying to fit zope 3 into the kinds of things done in that movie; some of his other examples are pretty magical too. "I write this UML model and presto, I get all this with zero lines of code, wow neat." What I'd really like is something like what you say later on: > This is an area where Rails is particularly strong. I'm normally not a > fan of code generation. But their tool generates just-enough. It's > code you can actually understand and start building from, and a quick > run to the api docs they have online is usually all that's needed to > start understanding the code you're looking at. The code their tool > generates runs basically what you see if you have it dynamically > providing 'scaffolding', so the conceptual difference between the > automatically generated and what it gives you out of the box is pretty > small. OK, so what if we had a code generator that would read some browser:addform/editform/schemadisplay directives and spit out some functionally equivalent code (python, zcml, and zpt) that you could just start using and editing? I think that might be pretty handy. > I really like the concept of through the web tweaking and > manipulation. But I'm sick of templates and scripts. I'm not quite sick of templates yet, but I am sick of "scripts". I still use them in CMF because they give me a convenient place to do what I described: view-related glue that I can tweak without restart. -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com _______________________________________________ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com