[Zope] (Fwd) Zope musings

[Paul Everitt]

David wrote:
> Paul mumbled:
> I'll jump in, since this is an issue I worry about w.r.t 
> Zope's success
> well for places I know, such as university departments where 
> faculty, not
> hackers, do web page editing and e.g. my organization, where 
> I want e.g.
> the HR manager to be able to edit the web pages and 
> blissfully ignore all
> of the cool Zope features that the webmaster really likes...

Is there are reason these folks can't use Netscape Composer?  It doesn't
sound like they would ever grok DTML...
 
> All sounds fine, of course.  It does sound distant -- which 
> is fine in the
> long term, but worrisome in the short term.  I don't know of a single
> WebDAV client I can play with, let alone a full-featured 
> WebDAV-aware HTML
> editor.

That's true.  If, however, Mozilla sprouted WebDAV capabilities in the
next three months, is that near enough term?
 
> > If someone has Linux on their desktop, how do they manage CF sites?
> 
> Irrelevant if your shop (as mine does) has a single Linux box as the
> server, and oodles of macs and PC's on desktops.  

Correct.  But I don't think Zope should pursue a direction that excludes
platforms such as Linux.

> > Let me ask a question that tries to quantify the situation. 
>  IMO, the
> > current Zope IDE is pretty unproductive.  On a scale of 1 
> to 100, its
> > *productivity* level is about a 5 compared to NetObjects Fusion,
> > Dreamweaver, etc.  On other factors it shines -- it is based on
> > standards, is completely portable, source code is available, is
> > mind-numbingly easy to modify the IDE, etc.
> > 
> > Just for argument, let's say that CF Studio is a 90.  If we came out
> > with an improved IDE that retained the factors listed above that CF
> > Studio fails at, what number would it need to move up to 
> for you to give
> > an unqualified "Yes!" ??
> 
> In our case, I suspect, a 20 or 30 would be enough.  What's 
> most important
> is, I think:
> 
>   - a GUI for the 95% of the web page editing tasks (a-la Netscape
>     Composer, Frontpage, etc.).

OK, fortunately Zope 1.10 appears to have solid Netscape Composer
integration.  FrontPage 2000 should be out within, say, four months, and
(theoretically) we'll get that with WebDAV.

>   - a clean, robust, and simple interaction between the user 
> (someone who
>     does not want to learn HTML but wants to manage their web page
>     nonetheless) and the "web server" -- Zope in this case.

OK, we have that with "Netscape Publishing" (HTTP PUT).

> > If *we* is your shop, how about...XEmacs?  Using ZServer to 
> publish your
> > object system by HTTP, you can be *significantly* more productive:
> 
> Again, emacs is irrelevant for my HR manager, who'd quit if 
> she was told
> she had to learn it (and, I dare say, she'd be right =).  It 

But she would also quit if she had to learn ColdFusion Studio.  You're
mixing up the discussions -- Alan was asking about that comparison.  I
imagine he'd quit if he had to manage web sites using FrontPage :^)

> *could* be
> that Netscape Composer is the answer for my shop -- I haven't tried it
> with the FTP-enabled Zope.

You don't need ZServer and FTP for it.  Download Zope 1.10pr1 and use
ZopeHTTPServer.  It *appears* to work well, and works well with
PCGI/Apache as well.

> > It would still be missing a *whole* lot of things vs. CF 
> Studio, such as
> > link checkers, a list of variables that can be inserted, syntax
> > colorization of the markup, etc.  Let's say it moved up to a 25.
> 
> From the perspective of someone who wants to use tools and 
> not hack code,
> emacs is useless.  The folks I'm trying to convince rave 

I agree that *content managers* won't adopt Emacs.  However,
*developers* such as Tom and Alan might find it a wildly productive
environment.

> about GoLive or
> whatever it's called.  I looked at it and couldn't get it to 
> manage Zope
> pages, but that could be me.  
> 
> So, as a summary:
> 
>   - emacs is fine for folks that already use emacs, but...
>   - emacs is not an HTML-editing tool.  It's a swiss-army chainsaw, as
>     we all know.  (Besides, what about the vi shops? =))
>   - I think Zope is an easy sell to webmasters who think ahead. 
>   - I think Zope is currently a hard sell to folks who like 
> shrink-wrapped
>     software with lots of buttons and gizmos and WYSIWYG.

Right.  And Zope needs to be more productive for both content managers
and developers.

--Paul