[Zope] MOO vs Zope

[Terry Hancock]

On Sunday 01 February 2004 11:00 am, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> OK, I get what you are tring to do (I think) and yes, I think Zope would be
> an excellent base for that. I do think that the real-time applications
> needed should "by-pass" Zope for the real-time work, so that you only commit
> to Zope for storage.

Yeah, that's sounds like the right design decision.  I'll have to see if
somebody actually wants to write a MOO with ZODB backend, 
of course. ;-)

As regards the "must play well with Zope OFS" constraint, *does* that
actually create much of a constraint with ZODB?

In other words, if I were to designate an object within the Zope OFS
as the top-level object for the MOO, would it then be reasonable to
have Zope able to traverse into the MOO?  If so, then we start to
get into the "mult-server" model that Zope uses already (e.g. HTTP,
Webdav, FTP, and XML-RPC are all currently supported, MOO would
just be an extra server using the same ZODB).

Add a plugin MOO client (or even a standalone that can be launched
from the browser), and we approach a situation where the users can just
segue into MOO mode if the situation calls for it (and possibly users without
MOO clients can participate through the HTTP mechanism).

Terry

--
Terry Hancock ( hancock at anansispaceworks.com )
Anansi Spaceworks  http://www.anansispaceworks.com