[ZDP] A first shot at a Zope Quickstart (part 1)

[Rik Hoekstra]

Maik Roeder wrote:
> 
> Hi Rik !

Hi Maik, thanks for the comments. I'll react to them if I have something
to say, otherwise I'll just incorporate them.

<snip> 
> 
> > Should this go into the ZDP Wiki.
> > Should I start a Quickstart project/task.
> > (How) Do we integrate this with ZBook?
> 
> Perhaps once it has become stable in a Subject/Topic
> Hierarchy it can go into the ZBook. 

OK. I'll proceed as you propose in the last part of your mail.

> This would obsolete
> ZBook Draft Submission Folders as the central repository
> for Drafts. Maybe then Draft Submission Folders could
> be used for an Approver or Editor to have another look
> at a new chapter shortly before it is released ?

Hm. I'm not sure I follow you here.


> 
> > ----------------------------------
> >
> > Zope Quickstart (part 1)
> >
> > Zope consists of several components which intimately work together to
> > provide a coherent and consistent whole.
> 
> It should be enough to say that "Zope consists of several components",
> and maybe name a few.

Yes. But this quote is taken from the main Zope site, which most people
reading this will have seen. Changing the quote will only be confusing.

> 
> > It is designed for the web from
> > scratch and it will cater for most common web needs, which are all present
> > in the quote from the Zope site.
> 
> "designed from scratch" does not sound good. 

OK.

> "Cater for most common web
> needs" does not sound very clear. Yes, it is a web application platform,
> so I can expect it to cater for the most common web needs. You mentioned
> the quote above, and maybe it is not necessary to refer to it again here.

Hm, perhaps. I'll add this as a comment on the site. I think it has a
function (ever looked at other web applications?)

<snip>

> 
> > For example: your current web site depends completely on Microsoft
> > products and you have a lot of time and money invested and you do not have a
> > new challenge in front of you - why change?
> 
> Maybe the last paragraph is not necessarily a good advertisement for Zope.
> It should go to the Zope evaluators portal. Let's treat only those people
> in the beginners guide that have decided for Zope.

OK, this example is not fortunate and I'll throw it out. Do we need only
to do straight advertisement. And afterwards get people complaining that
they do not see where Zope contributed to their needs??? In itself I
thought somewhat balanced treament of what Zope is for and for who it is
was a good idea. After all, people would expect straight out
advertisement and a little balance will do no harm.

<snip> 
> 
> > If you only have static pages to serve, you may be better off with a
> > specialized web server (like Apache). If you have dynamic content (and who
> > wants to be static rather than dynamic?) read on.
> 
> Maybe better: "Even if you want to serve static pages with Zope, there
> is a Product LocalFs with which you can serve them from your file system
> like Apache. 

see my comments above. I wanted to describe what Zope is _really_ for,
not what it is _also_ for. I'll think about how to rephrase the part
though, as it did not come across as I intended.

<snip

> 
> > There is more to Zope than just this. Zope is an advanced platform, and it
> > is **well structured**.
> 
> I would expect this anyway. This makes most sense if you mention how
> it was in the ancient times when people create CGI scripts, and everything
> was very fragmented.

Like now, still. Is this not one of our primary audiences? The
php/asp/perl/python/ssi/whatever cgi scripters? 

<snip>
 
> > So you should be prepared to do some thinking about the
> > structure of your site. This *will* pay off in term of maintainability and
> > ease of extending.
> >
> > Using Zope alongside another Web techniques
> 
> Perhaps this should not be mentioned here.

Hm. it _is_ a newbie/prospective user question that come up on the list
regularly, so it should go into the start of the document.


> 
> > You may already be considering using Zope, but you already have considerable
> > effort put into another tool for your site, for instance straight cgi, php
> > or asp. Zope integrates well with any webserver able to run cgi. This means
> > you can continue to use your old scripts side by side with Zope. (However it
> > is not unlikely that once you get the knack of Zope you'll want to migrate
> > all your major Web scripting applications - you have been warned). How to
> > make them work together, will depend mostly on what you actually *are* using
> > right now, so please read the specific sections for that information.
> > [links]
> 
> It may be sufficient to mention that Zope can be integrated with other
> tools, and then link to this topic in the ZDP site.

I disagree. I'll add this as a comment though.

>> You may use Zope for free, but you are asked to put the Zope attribution
> > buttion on your homepage or somewhere most appropriate on your site.
> 
> This is not completely accurate. The new Zope license does not require you
> to add such a button, if I remember right. It used to be different.
>

I did not write require, did I?

to quote the relevant license part:

|"Digital Creations requests that attribution be given to Zope in any
manner possible. Zope 
| includes a "Powered by Zope" button that is installed by default.
While it is not a license
| violation to remove this button, it is requested that the attribution
remain. A significant 
| investment has been put into Zope, and this effort will continue if
the Zope community 
| continues to grow. This is one way to assure that growth."

While this is put quite liberal, I thought it would be good to mention
it even in this document.
 
<snip>

> 
> I haven't read the rest of your document, but I will do so soon,
> and send you more feedback.

Good, thanks again for your valuable input.

> 
> From what I read up to now, I really think it could be beneficial
> to actually write the Quickstart in Subjects and Topics on the ZDP site,
> and make heavy use of hyperlinks. This will fragmentarize things,
> but will be good for separation of concerns. Once you have treated
> each topic, you can put them together again later in one document
> as a chapter in ZBook. I think this procedure can be thought of
> as a more structured Wiki, because people can add thoughts below
> the Topics and then the author integrates them, deleting the comments,
> but giving credit where it is due.
> 

OK, I will do that. Or rather, I will _also_ do that, as I want as many
people to read and react as possible. 

Rik