Graeme Rocher wrote:
> Looking at the examples and code there is not really a comparison to
> make between Grails/Rails and this Zero thing
>
> It is more like PHP for Groovy. There is no ORM layer, the controller
> and view are seamingly mixed together and no real controller layer. It
> is an abandonment of the MVC architecture and seems to focus on page
> centric applications based on an eventing system
Yes, I see Zero mostly as good news. I think it is mostly complementary
to Grails. For their mission critical applications, I think Grails
will be the number one option of choice for most corporate and government
organisations. For the next tier down though, which is where PHP's
sweet spot is, Zero could be a good option. At least I think it could
be if IBM can sell Zero as a concept to hosting providers.
What would be nicer though is if any resources the Zero team put towards
generic functionality was made as a contribution towards Groovy itself
and they kept only their framework specific classes in the "closed"
source world. Just look at all the great features which feed into
Groovy from Grails.
I can't see Zero's current model as being attractive for typical
open source developers to want to contribute but on the flip side
I do still see some organisations that are cautious towards open
source who might feel more comfortable knowing IBM is supporting
the Zero offering.
Cheers, Paul.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
