From eaaa8855d88eedb2ad4fef435e7473022504485e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Chris McDonough Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 21:41:46 -0400 Subject: convert more docs from bfg to pyramid --- docs/tutorials/cmf/index.rst | 12 ++++++------ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) (limited to 'docs/tutorials/cmf/index.rst') diff --git a/docs/tutorials/cmf/index.rst b/docs/tutorials/cmf/index.rst index 77d2ce02c..65ad99551 100644 --- a/docs/tutorials/cmf/index.rst +++ b/docs/tutorials/cmf/index.rst @@ -1,21 +1,21 @@ -Converting an Existing Zope/CMF Application to :mod:`repoze.bfg` +Converting an Existing Zope/CMF Application to :mod:`pyramid` ================================================================ The Zope `Content Management Framework `_ (aka CMF) is a layer on top of :term:`Zope` 2 that provides facilities for creating content-driven websites. It's reasonably easy to convert a modern Zope/CMF -application to :mod:`repoze.bfg`. +application to :mod:`pyramid`. -The main difference between CMF and :mod:`repoze.bfg` is that -:mod:`repoze.bfg` does not advertise itself as a system into which you +The main difference between CMF and :mod:`pyramid` is that +:mod:`pyramid` does not advertise itself as a system into which you can plug arbitrary "packages" that extend a system-supplied management user interface. You *could* build a CMF-like layer on top of -:mod:`repoze.bfg` (as CMF is built on Zope) but none currently exists. +:mod:`pyramid` (as CMF is built on Zope) but none currently exists. For those sorts of high-extensibility, highly-regularized-UI systems, CMF is still the better choice. -:mod:`repoze.bfg` (and other more lightweight systems) is often a +:mod:`pyramid` (and other more lightweight systems) is often a better choice when you're building the a user interface from scratch, which often happens when the paradigms of some CMF-provided user interface don't match the requirements of an application very closely. -- cgit v1.2.3