Re: [Jython-dev] Jython 2.1a3 on j2sdk1.4.0beta

[Jeremy H. <je...@zo...>]

>>>>> "TB" == Titus Brown <ti...@ca...> writes:

  -> TB> that Zope's C code is primarily in the area of medusa, their
  -> TB> request-handling front-end.  So, if you can figure out how to
  -> TB> disentangle Zope from medusa, it shouldn't be too hard to
  whip -> TB> up something that works.  -> -> There is little or no C
  code in medusa.  A quick scan of the Zope -> source tree shows that
  C code is used in the following places:

  TB> Really?  Oh, because asyncore has been integrated into the
  TB> distribution, right?  But it's not in Jython... for obvious
  TB> reasons.

asyncore is implemented in Python on top of select.  I'm not sure what
C code you think is in there :-).

  -> - ExtensionClass and friends, which are used to implement ->
  acquisition and a host of other things;

  TB> Ahh, this I didn't know about...

  -> - BTrees, which are used to implement catalogs aka searches; and

  TB> Presumably this functionality could be replaced fairly easily
  TB> with existing Java classes, no?

Probably not.  The BTrees are persistence objects that interact with
ZODB. 

  -> - ZODB, which provides the persistence / transaction machinery.

  TB> ZODB is (AFAIK) client/server, yes?

Not really.  ZODB is a transactional persistence mechanism for Python.
It needs to hook into the interpreter in a pretty low-level way to
move objects in and out of memory.  The only client-server part is
ZEO, which is just one option from providing storage for the state of
persistent objects.

  -> TB> Also see my "Zope is Evil" page for mild commentary about the
  -> TB> smugness of Zopatistas ;).  -> -> I'm sure you have plenty of
  legitimate technical criticisms of Zope.  -> "Evil" doesn't suggest
  to me what they are.  It sounds more like name -> calling to me, but
  perhaps I'm just smug.

  TB> ;) You should probably go read the page... Most of my criticisms
  TB> ;are not,
  TB> in fact, technical, but (at least wrt the state of documentation
  TB> and the user community) were methodological.

I just scanned your page.  It's hard to follow all the stuff at the
beginning.  It seems basically polemical; there's no technical content
or criticism that seems worth taking time to respond to.

Jeremy