[Web-SIG] [Proposal] "website" and first-level conf (was: more comments on Paste Deploy)

[Sidnei da Silva]

On 3/5/07, Jim Fulton <jim at zope.com> wrote:
> > On 3/5/07, Jim Fulton <jim at zope.com> wrote:
> >> We don't deploy to win32 and I don't know enough about win32 to
> >> answer.  I expect though that, like Unix, a production deployment is
> >> going to look different than a development buildout.  In any case,
> >> I'm pretty sure that the classic unix-mimicing layout has no
> >> advantages for win32. :)
> >
> > Well, it is something that needs to be considered though. We can't
> > just close one eye and pretend that win32 does not exist.
>
> I wasn't suggesting we shouldn't consider it.  I just don't think
> win32 will change my opinion of what I think about a unix-inspired
> instance layout.
>
> Someone should think about windows who actually uses it.  I am not a
> windows server administrator, so I can't suggest how deploying
> applications on windows servers would effect file placement or layout.

Thanks for the clarification.

So can I suggest that when the tools for deploying are created, that
they be extensible so that someone can come in after the fact and put
the win32-specific code in place without having to rewrite everything
from scratch?

Things that come to my mind are:

  - logging (should be able to swap file-based logging by nt event log
logging for example). With ZConfig/zope.conf this an easy task.
  - 'cron'-like things, should be able to read settings from a file
and install scheduled tasks that run the same scripts on Windows
  - 'service' code, should be able to have a generic service wrapper
that can run anything as a service.
  - Application shouldn't rely on *nix signals, or should be made
extensible to handle Windows 'named events', which are equivalent but
not quite the same.

-- 
Sidnei da Silva
Enfold Systems                http://enfoldsystems.com
Fax +1 832 201 8856     Office +1 713 942 2377 Ext 214