Re: ZTK TTW Content Types Project Wiki

Hey guys,

first post on this list since circa 2005… Hope you're doing well.

It's almost funny to see that there's still some debate on that subject.
Like most things in our industry it is kind of cyclic : 10 years ago TTW
was probably the new cool thing, then it became evil for lots of good
reasons.

Two cents on that topic.

 1. nobody speaks exactly of the same thing while debating about TTW.
This is a bit true in particular in the discussion fragment cited below.
Besides, should I recall that conditions tend to be different in time,
space, and application ?

 2. Here's my attempt to obtain a correct statement taking 1. into account:
    """Given the current application management and hosting trends that
are all over the place in my country for the kind of industrial
installations I happen to maintain (mostly Zope 2 for now), I see that
some kind of really well controlled TTW customization is a need, more
than ever."""
Too bad if that's advocating TTW, heh.

Oops, that made a bigger second cent than I'd imagine.

Anyway, the problem is much more general than just TTW, and we could
speak of the nightmares of TTMail, TTUsbkey and TTBlindSysAdmin. I just
hope we can have a really well done DVCS integration at some point to
solve the big problem of tracking configuration, live emergency
patching. Ever heard of that ?
Eventually, I would be happy to code something like that, but since I'd
like to use it, It'd be in a context that not many people care about
(Zope 2.9 only, to begin with)

Cheers,

On 09/08/2010 01:32 PM, Kevin Gill wrote:
>> >
>> > The big, big problem with any kind of TTW development is that it usually
>> > breaks down badly when you move your code to a production server and then
>> > need to continue development in a separate environment. Code and
>> > configuration stored in a database is difficult to deploy and merge when
>> > the same database holds live data and content. The same problem exists where
>> > more than one developer needs to collaborate. Without source files and
>> > source control, it's impossible to give each developer their own sandbox.
>> >
> These are all valid problems. I don't want to discuss them, because I am
> not advocating TTW. But I will point out that I worked around them all
> when doing TTW, e.g. APE allowed me to keep Code in SVN, multiple Zope


> instances allowed me to develop different branches, my data was in
> Postgres anyway etc.



-- 
Georges Racinet, http://www.racinet.fr
Zope/CPS expertise, assistance & development
GPG: 0x4862FFF7 identi.ca & twitter: gracinet

_______________________________________________
Zope-Dev maillist  -  [email protected]
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMh9L9AAoJEOAffZJiF+Z4sqkIAJrQU0HHCOea6N7Av7iOfsCh
sNJA9YGfYlRrCliHtyh1aGia7gPGZHzPVGyOZMi6lZwwtlM8XU1ZXgcZsCjsPosn
LAMKpCGa6+7dFmkWpekK1P2eEyATPgPnt58RidVO3KnBk36xeCy+zN30lsLgRfJb
B7yO8h1daPtRyMOsGMiXf1rzT8Cw4l2C32EBfs9gblc9/MNFAA4JeWE0vrBxGooQ
YKLHU5RA7BW9dQqkqPfwg/XLppFtw68oXgxpF7+eIcLvnoINwU54Dvga6XmgmS9R
3mslcVGasi87eBZChS0trrDI8h5ZTG8laOKsPUdpw0ApNm95ha4hcJj+99D+TZ8=
=Bt0s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----