[Zope-Coders] Re: [Zope-dev] Moving forward with Zope 2.7

[Jeffrey P Shell]

On Monday, November 25, 2002, at 08:00  PM, Chris McDonough wrote:

> On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 20:42, THoffman@indtech.wa.gov.au wrote:
>> Could we get the Install and Configuration proposal cleaned up, with 
>> so
>> many comments it's not clear what the actual proposal proposes to
>> deliver now.
>
> Yes when possible.  I agree that it is a bit of a mess.
>
> In the meantime, I think this list summarizes the adjusted goals well:
>
>     * configure; make; make install installation

I thought that there was an effort to use distutils, or to at least use 
a distutils-ish setup.  What happened to that?

>     * control script for starting/stopping/debugging zope
>     * config file for all options including logging,
>       servers, and databases.

I gather from reading other posts that this is a different format than 
Zope 3's ZCML.  Would it be worth it to at least make some sort of 
'ZCML Lite' to do this sort of configuration?  The main thing I'm 
concerned about is that there's a whole new Zope coming down the road 
that depends heavily on configuration files, and it might make sense to 
start weaning people onto its general syntax if Zope 2's finally going 
to have a config file.

>     * real "effective user" support (logfiles, database files, etc.
>       dont get written as root if you start as root).
>     * better support for instance home/software home split
>     * better support for Windows services

Woohoo!

>     * RPM-building support.

Yawn.  :)

>     * where possible, the banishment of environment variables
>       as configuration.

Woohoo!

> All of these things save for the last are more or less complete on the
> "chrism-install-branch" of the Zope trunk.  The major missing piece is
> the fleshing out of the interaction between the configuration system
> (ZConfig) and Zope itself.  It works currently but it needs to be
> improved and canonized to everyone's liking.  Since ZConfig will also
> used by other ZC software (ZEO, ZRS), there's a bit of back and forth
> that needs to be done to get everybody to agree on a way to do it.  
> Once
> that is worked out, and the proposal is cleaned up, I think we can just
> merge.

ZRS?  This isn't the long-discussed replicated storage is it?

Anyways - good work.  The better support for Windows services alone 
would get you a beer if I happened to be on that coast.. :)