Paster vs. ArchGenXML

Question

I questionning myself : is it better to use Paster for creating content types, browser view, portlet, etc... or ArchGenXML ?

Which one of those two create the better source code ?

Is there an advantage of using one or the other ?

Thanks.

Answer 1

They're two quite different things.

Paster creates an initial skeleton. Once it's done, you're on your own.

ArchGenXML needs a UML model first, and then it can create quite complex systems of code. As long as you modify your code only within prescribed regions of the .py file, you can change your model and rerun ArchGenXML as often as you wish.

Either one only generates code as good as its authors have provided, and while I use ArchGenXML extensively, I see a fair bit of deprecated code generated. otoh, I've never seen it generate completely invalid code.

I use ArchGenXML because I like having my original source in UML

Answer 2

Just to give you another point of view:

I think that ArchGenXML is a tool for someone that doesn't really want to get his/her hands dirty for as long as possible a tool that let you take a little more time planning and a little less time coding (I see this as a negative point) . Paster on the contrary is just a comfort to speed up some work, and you will get your hands dirty very soon.

I started coding in Plone using paster, then after a while when I felt secure, I abandoned it (like the babywalker :D ). And then you learn to run, and after some time you get old and lazy and you realize that, after all, paster is still your friend. ArchGenXML, on the other hand, I think that's an obstruction for your learning.

Plus, if you use paster and in the end of the project your code sucks you can blame just yourself (I see this as a good point).

These are just my 2¢.