Understanding Zope internals, from Django eyes

Question

Note: This is not a post regarding which is better, zope or django? Its about understanding zope internals/architecture, when compared to Django's

I am a newbee to zope and I previously worked on Django for about 2.5 years. So when I first jumped into Zope(v2)(only because my new company is using it since 7 years), I faced these questions. Please help me in understanding them.

1)What is the "real" purpose of zodb as such? Meaning I know what it does, but tell me one great thing that zodb does and a framework like django(which doesn't have zodb) misses

Update: Based on the answers, Zodb replaces the need for ORM. You can directly store the object inside the db(zodb itself).

2)It is said one of the zope's killer feature is the TTW(Through the Web or Developing using ZMI) philosophy. But I(and any developer) prefers File-System based development(using Version control, using Eclipse, using any favorite tool outside Zope). Then where is this TTW actually used?

3)This is the big one. What "EXTRA Stuff" does Zope's Acquistion gain when compared to Python/Django Inheritance.

4)Is it really a good move to come to Zope, from Django ?

5)Any site like djangosnippets.org for Zope(v2)?

Answer 1

I answer without much experience on both, but I had the chance to manipulate both, so I can tell you my opinion on some of your questions.

1)What is the "real" purpose of zodb as such? Meaning I know what it does, but tell me one great thing that zodb does and a framework like django(which doesn't have zodb) misses

Load distribution via ZEO and search via ZCatalog. Django is very low level on this point of view. To achieve the same, you would have to reimplement a lot of wheels, triangular. Something I learned quite soon is: don't mess with low level database issues. You will screw them up. It's a can of worms, Dune sized.

So why choose django ORM ? You should also consider if YAGNI. django is easy and self contained, documentation is premium, and when (if) your site will grow that much, you will do the switch to a better ORM (or to a pure OODB, in case of ZODB) later on.

2)It is said one of the zope's killer feature is the TTW(Through the Web or Developing using ZMI) philosophy. But I(and any developer) prefers File-System based development(using Version control, using Eclipse, using any favorite tool outside Zope). Then where is this TTW actually used?

I cannot answer properly to this question, but I would not say that it's fundamentally bad to develop with such approach. Of course it's a change of mindset, and I tend to prefer filesystem based development as well.

4)Is it really a good move to work on Zope, from Django ?

Zope 3 is very modular, so you are free to use many of its components from django. I would advise against it though. You can, of course, but what I found most problematic is the lack of help. There are not many people using zope components and django at the same time. Sooner or later, you will have a problem and google won't help. At that point, you will realize that if your life was a videogame, you are definitely playing it at level difficult (maybe extreme, if you will have to put your nose into the zope code).

Answer 2

ZODB is a OO-style database that doesn't need a schema definition. You can simply create (nearly) all kinds of objects, and persist them.

The TTW is sometimes annoying, but you can mount the ZOPE-object-tree using webdav. Then you can edit the templates and scripts using your favorite editor.

ZOPE is especially powerful for creating CMS-like systems, IMHO there it is still unmatched - you'd have to go through a lot to make it work equally well in Django.

And through the TTW, actually non-developers like designers have a good chance of developing e.g. templates and CSS without need for developer interaction.

Answer 3

First things first: current zope2 versions include all of zope3, too. And if you look at modern zope2 applications like Plone, you'll see that it uses a lot of "zope 3" (now called the "zope tool kit", ZTK) under the hood.

The real purpose of the ZODB: it is one of the few object databases (as opposed to relational SQL databases) that sees real widespread use. You can "just" store all your python objects in there without needing to use an object-relational mapper. No "select * from xyz" under the hood. And adding a new attribute on a zodb object "just" persists that change. Luxurious! Especially handy when your data cannot be handily mapped to a strict relational database. If you can map it easily: just use such a database, I've used sqlalchemy a few times in zope projects.

TTW: we've come back from that. At least, the zope2 way of TTW indeed has all the drawbacks that you fear. No version control, no outside tools, etc. Plone is experimenting (google for "dexterity") with nice explicit zope 3 ways of doing TTW development that can still be mapped back to the filesystem.

TTW: the zodb makes it easy and cheap to store all sorts of config settings in the database, so you can typically adjust a lot of things through the browser. This doesn't really count as typical TTW development, though.

Acquisition: handy trick, though it leads to a huge namespace polution. Double edged sword. To improve debuggability and maintenance we try to do without in most of the cases. The acquisition happens inside the "object graph", so think "folder structure inside the zope site". A call to "contact_form" three folders down can still find the "contact_form" on the root of the site if it isn't found somewhere in between. Double edged sword!

(And regular python object oriented inheritance happens all over the place of course).

Moving from django to zope: a really good idea for certain problems and nonsensical for other problems :-) Quite a lot of zope2/plone companies have actually done some django projects for specific projects, typically those that have 99% percent of their content in a relatively straightforward SQL database. If you're more into content management, zope (and plone) is probably better.

Additional tip: don't focus only on zope2. Zope3's "component architecture" has lots of functionality for creating bigger applications (also non-web). Look at grok (http://grok.zope.org) for a friendly packaged zope, for instance. The pure component architecture is also usable inside django projects.

Answer 4

A very good reference on ZODB is ZODB/ZEO programmer's guide. ZODB is not an ORM. Its a true object database. Python objects are persisted inside the database transparently without any worries about how to transform them into a representation suitable for database. Any pickleable Python object can be saved inside the ZODB. Relational databases are suitable for large amount of flat data (like employee records) while ZODB is best for hierarchical data (typically found in web applications). I personally use Zope 3 for my applications. I never did TTW type of work. Best part of using ZODB was the fact that I never had to worry at all about how I am going to save data and how things would change when I upgrade my software from one version to next one. For example, if I add a new attribute to a Python class, all I have to do is provide a default value as a class attribute. It then becomes automatically available to all objects created with the previous version of the same class. Removing an attribute is a simple del operation on existing objects. BTW, ZODB can be used independently in any kind of Python application and isn't coupled with just ZOPE platform. I love the fact that I don't have to worry about the nitty gritties of SQL while working on Python applications thanx to ZODB. And off course if you need a database server so that you can run multiple copies of your application backed by the same server ZEO comes to your rescue on top of ZODB.

Zope started with the idea of being an Object Publishing Environment. From that perspective mapping the URL directly to the object hierarchy in ZODB was great. The URLs simply reflect the hierarchy of objects. Now so far as figuring out the URL is considered, there is always the Rotterdam debugging interface for help. For development work, I keep the development flags on in the zope configuration and look at the contents of ZODB through the Rotterdam interface. Rotterdam skin provide a great way of introspecting the Python objects stored inside the ZODB and figuring out the URLs is much more interactive. Moreover, for major containers inside my ZODB, I register them as persistent utilities inside the site manager (Zope 3 sites and site managers). Anywhere in my code, whenever I need access to such containers, all I do is getUtility(IMyContainerType). I don't even have to remember the detailed locations of those containers inside the code base. They are once registered with the site manager and going forward available anywhere inside the code base through getUtility() calls. And the URLs also support namespaces. For example using the ++skin++ namespace, you can anytime change the skin of your web application. Using the ++language++ namespace, you can any time change the preferred language of your user interface. Using the ++attributes++ namespace you can access individual attributes of an object. URLs are simply much more powerful and much more customizable. And you can write traversal adapters, define your own namespaces, to enhance the capabilities of your URLs. To give an example, all pages which are directly accessible from the web interface, are part of my default skin. While all pages which are invoked through background AJAX calls, are under a different skin. This way, one can implement different ways of authentication mechanisms in different skins. In main skin, one is redirected to a different login page in case of authentication failure. For AJAX pages, one could simply receive an HTTP error. This could be centrally done. Zope 3 objects have interfaces and one view can be defined for multiple interfaces. Wherever you have an object which supports the given interface, all associated views become automatically available and all such URLs are automatically valid. If you think about it, its a much more powerful than a single python file or XML file where the URLs are hard-coded. I don't really know much about DJango and J2EE so cannot say if they have equivalent capability.

Answer 5

On the ZODB:

Another way to ask "What is the real purpose of the ZODB?" is to ask, "Why was the ZODB originally created?"

The answer to that is the project was started very early on, around 1996. This was before the existance of MySQL or PostgreSQL, when miniSQL (a free-to-use but not free software) database was still in common use, or big money databases such as Oracle. Python provided the pickle module to serialize Python objects to disk - but serialization is lower level, it doesn't allow for features such as transactions, concurrent writes, and replication. This is what the ZODB provides.

It's still in use today in Zope because it works well. If you have no existing skillset in realational databases, it's easier to learn to use the ZODB than a relational database. It's also usable simpler use-cases, for example if you have a command-line script that needs to store some configuration information, using a relational database means having to run a database server just to store a little bit of configuraiton. You could use a config file, but the ZODB also works quite nicely because it's an embedable database. That means that the database is running in the same process as the rest of your Python code.

It's also worth noting that the API used to store objects inside containers is different between Zope 2 and Zope 3. In Zope 2, containers are stored as attributes:

 root.mycontainer.myattr

In Zope 3, they use the same interface as Python standard dictionary type:

  root['mycontainer']myattr

This is another reason why it can be easier to learn to use the ZODB than the Django ORM, since Django has it's own interface for it's ORM which is distinct from Python's existing interfaces.

Through-the-web (TTW):

Again, understanding the reason for TTW goes back when Zope was developed. While it seems silly to break with well known developer tools such Subversion or Mercurial, Zope was developed in the late 90s when the only free version control system was CVS. Zope 2 had it's own simple version control capabilites, and they were as good as CVS (which is to say, "they were limited and sucky."). UNIX workstations cost a lot more money back then, and had far fewer resources, so System Administrators were much more guarded and careful about how servers were managed. TTW allowed people who might not normally be able to upload code to the server with sysadmin intervation a way to do that.

With text editors, emacs and vi have had ftp-modes, and Zope 2 can listen on an FTP port. This would allow you to develop so that code was stored in the ZODB (editable TTW), but it was common to edit this code using a emacs or vi.

Today in Zope, TTW is more rarely used or promoted since it no longer makes sense to do this. Disk space is cheap, servers are (relatively) cheap, and there are lots of developer tools which expect to interact with the standard filesystem.

Acquisition:

It was a mistake. It was a very confusing feature that caused lots of unexpected things to happen. In theory there are some interesting ideas to acquisition, but in practice it's best tossed in the bin and has little practical use.

Moving from Django to Zope:

Work started on Zope 3 in 2001. This fixed a lot of the problems with Zope 2. It's a testament to the Zope community that Zope 2 is still actively and well maintained, but it's hardly state-of-the-art. Zope 2 is really only interesting to learn from a historical perspective.

Zope 3 ended up getting evolved in a few different directions, and so modern incarnations of Zope are best expressed in the form of Grok, BFG or Bobo.

Grok is closest to Zope 3, and as such is a pretty large framework - it can be rather overwhelming at times when delving through it's code base. However, just like Django, or any other full-stack framework you don't need to use every part of Grok, it can be quite easy to learn the basic and create web applications with it. It's convention-over-configuration is second to none, and it's class-based Views give it a much tighter, arguably cleaner code base than a Django web application. It's URL routing system is extremely flexible, but also arguably over-engineered.

BFG is a "pay for only what you eat" framework written by long time Zope developer Chris McDonough. As such, it's closer to Pylons in spirit, where only the parts deemed core or essential to a framework are included. It also plays very well with WSGI. It only uses a few core Zope packages.

Bobo is a "micro-framework". It's just a way to route URLs and serve up an app. It doesn't use any Zope packages, so isn't strictly in the Zope family of web frameworks. But it was written by Zope's creator, Jim Fulton, who originally called the publishing part of Zope, "Bobo". The original Bobo, written in the early 90's, mapped URLs to packages and modules, so if your source code was layed out as:

mypackage.mymodule.MyClass

You could have a URL such as:

/mypackage/mymodule/MyClass

Which was very inflexible, and was replaced with URL Traversel in Zope 2, which is fairly complex. Bobo uses Routes, so it's a middle ground between dead-simple URL resolution and complex URL resolution - about the same in complexity as Django's URL resolution machinery.

Answer 6

+1 on Wheat's answer, above: "Zope 2 is really only interesting to learn from a historical perspective". I did Zope dev for a large site for a couple of years, 50% zope 2, 50% zope 3. Even then (this was 2 years ago) we were working to migrate everything off of zope 2. Unless you already have a lot invested in an existing Zope 2 project, there's no reason to use it; there's just not much of future there. And if you do have a big existing zope 2 project, I'd suggest taking a look at a product caled Five (a joke: 2 + 3 = 5) that aims to

allow you to integrate Zope 3 technologies into Zope 2. Among others, it allows you to use Zope 3 interfaces, ZCML-based configuration, adapters, browser pages (including skins, layers, and resources), automated add and edit forms based on schemas, object events, as well as Zope 3-style i18n message catalogs.

When all is said and done, Zope 3 is a very different framework from 2, and IMHO, a much better (albeit more complicated) one. TTW is optional, and not recommended for most cases. Implicit acquisition is gone.

Looks like people here have covered why you might want to use the ZODB, so I thought I'd mention one other thing about Zope 3 (or Zope 2 using Five) that's good. Zope has a very powerful system for wiring together different application components called the Zope Component Architecture (ZCA). It allows you to write components that are more or less autonomous and reusable, and which can be plugged together in a standardized way. I mostly do Django development now and I sometimes find myself missing the ZCA. In Django, the ability to write reusable components is limited and kind of ad-hoc. But, like Reinout says zope.component (like most zope packages, including the ZODB) works outside of the zope framework and could be used in a Django project.

That said, the ZCA has its drawbacks, one of which is the tedious process of registering your components in XML files; it always felt a little Java-esqe to me. One reason I really like is that it sits on top of zope.component and does much of that grunt work for you.

So bottom line: Zope 2 is mostly a dead end. If your employer is amenable to it, start looking at Zope 3, or at least Five. I think you'll find Zope 3 has a steep learning curve compared to Django, so it might be a good idea to come at it via Grok, which smooths out a lot of Zope 3's rougher edges. But, I think for a really large or complex web application with lots of moving parts, I'd go for Zope over Django (and I say this as someone who really likes Django a lot). For smaller projects, Django would probably be faster. Quantifying "large" and "small" in this context is hard though, and would probably require a couple of thousand more words. If you really are interested in Zope 3, the book by Philipp von Weitershausen is definitely the place to start.