[ZPatterns] ZPatterns and...CMF???

[Gary Poster]

Thanks to all for the responses.

TransWarp:

Phillip, I digested the TransWarp wiki several months ago and was very
excited by it.  Do you have any estimates on further development, or are you
currently embroiled in other creations?

I am curious as to how TransWarp would solve this type of problem.  I assume
it is by allowing modifications that would otherwise be hacks to be
maintainable aspects instead.  While this is a distinct improvement, I
thought the problem's root was that, no matter what, it requires hooks in
Zope's innards--innards that have no (or volatile) interfaces now and may
prove resistant to component interfaces in the future because of their low
level tasks.  Is this a fair assessment?

RDBMS in CMF:

So, using ZPatterns in CMF for a simple non-hierarchical rack might not be
too bad (as per Steve A.'s linked Ulrich Eck email)--but then you've lost a
significant chunk of the whole reason to do the Object Relational combo in
the first place (trees).  Moreover, just reading the link Steve A. gave, it
seems the modifications Ulrich Eck describes are hacks themselves--perhaps
not as bad as the theoretical ObjectManager hack but still something that
would have to be maintained regularly along with CMF upgrades.  I don't like
it.

The two main developer hooks in CMF are new content types and new tools, I
think.  The content type hook seems to be a dead end for now and for the
foreseeable future.  I'll ponder the tool hook for a bit and see if I think
a tool could be a rack or some type of DB access usefully, somehow.  It
seems like it might be more maintainable, at least; the only problem is that
a tool is not content.  Ahem.  If anyone has any brilliant ideas feel free
to throw them at me.

Thanks again.

Gary