OT Re: [Zope-DB] writing a template to test if the sql worked

[Philip Kilner]

Hi Charlie,

Charlie Clark wrote:
>>So, to apply this to a new process, I only need to define the formulator
>>objects, the sequence, and the results script and page - everything else
>>is now automated/generic.
>>
>>Re. the compartmentalisation, absolutely - each bit is intelligible.
> 
> Yes, this is the key. As long as you're happy with it. I'd have to look at 
> the source to get the full picture but it sounds reasonable, better in some 
> ways than some of the things I've done. I really need to sit down with 
> Formulator and see if I can't get my head around it.
>  

I'm going to write this up as a "how to" very, very, soon - it's taken a 
lot of blood, sweat and tears (nothing like a tantrum to blow the 
cobwebs away!) to get this far, in large part I think because the 
documentation (aside from the usual issues about fragmentation etc.) 
simply isn't aimed at someone with my background (emphatically /not/ a 
programmer, but a fair application developer with the right tools).

Zope is s-o-o-o close to my ideal, and I've picked up a lot of scar 
tissue over Dreamweaver's take on writing data-driven web applications 
(They make it easy to re-use /their/ code, but add little or no value 
when it comes to re-using your /own/ work...unless you want to develop 
components, which I don't!). I really think that with a non-trivial, 
fully documented example, Zope would be a very accessible platform for 
writing data-driven web apps - and you get all the other clever stuff it 
can do "for free"!

Now I feel as though I've "tamed it" for my purposes, I'm very, very, 
happy with Formulator. Not just because of the validation, but the 
rendering, too.

>>Understood - in the scenario above, I initially set out merely to make
>>the formulator stuff generic. However, when I'd done that I was itching
>>to get the process /sequence/ out of the controlling script - which is
>>otherwise also completely generic.
> 
> This is right way of doing things. Using TinyTable or the ZODB makes the 
> process itself manageable and flexible.
>  

I'm so pleased you said that - I'm pleased with the result, but I need 
feedback!

> Acquisition can be painful. Namespaces and scopes are common gotchas 
> everywhere.
>  

The number of times I've cursed about error messages referring to 
non-existent globals is without number...

> His approach is, essentially, similar to your own except he puts all the 
> flow-control within a PythonScript. This makes a lot of sense for more 
> complicated things than simply going through a sequence as you can use nice 
> things like "dispatching" within Python. But then again the temptation is 
> great to integrate real workflow for this as well.

That was my conclusion, having played about a little with DCWorkflow - 
great tool for the appropriate job, but all my processes are linear at 
the moment, so it's not indicated. I'd use work flow over script logic, 
simply because I understand it better because - once again - it makes 
the whole thing more "tangible" to me...

-- 

Regards,

PhilK

Email: phil at xfr.co.uk / Voicemail & Facsimile: 07092 070518

"The lyf so short, the craft so long to learne" - Chaucer