Oh, OK. You know, probably not - the demand is mostly in the plone
community, most of those who use other z-based technologies don't
encounter difficulty with buildout. That's why I said that plone-only
sounded fine. I was just curious what the extra work would be to not
have it plone-specific.

Derek

On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 12:25 AM, Kenneth Miller <xkenneth@...> wrote:
> Derek,
>
>    It's not a question of difficulty of implementation, I'm just asking if
> you think anyone will use it for generic build-outs.
>
> Regards,
> Ken
>
> On Jun 23, 2008, at 7:18 PM, Derek Richardson wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 3:08 PM, KennethMiller <xkenneth@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> Just to spark a bit of discussion:
>>>
>>>  I want to make my time as useful as possible, so I don't want to waste
>>> time coding for unneeded features. Recently I've been questioning the
>>> usefulness of the buildoutbuilder as a generic buildout configuration tool.
>>> I see the tools main functionality being distributing the pre-configured and
>>> configuring plone-specific buildouts. I'd really like to spend as much time
>>> as possible making this an excellent tool. Let me know what you think.
>>
>> I have no problem with plone-specific, but am curious what
>> difficulties make it more efficient to focus on plone than develop a
>> generic tool. What features would a generic tool need that a plone
>> tool doesn't?
>>
>> Derek
>>
>>
>> --
>> Archive:
>> http://www.openplans.org/projects/buildoutbuilder/lists/buildoutbuilder-discussion/archive/2008/06/1214266747074
>> To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to
>> buildoutbuilder-discussion@....  Please contact
>> buildoutbuilder-discussion-manager@... for questions.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Archive:
> http://www.openplans.org/projects/buildoutbuilder/lists/buildoutbuilder-discussion/archive/2008/06/1214281537174
> To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to
> buildoutbuilder-discussion@....  Please contact
> buildoutbuilder-discussion-manager@... for questions.
>