-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 10, 2009, at 03:33 , Martin Aspeli wrote:
There are some discussions about licensing going on with the Plone
Foundation, but chances are good that it can be licensed in such a way
that CMF could adopt it you want.
IMHO the licensing issue
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Hi Jens,
IMHO the licensing issue is of general interest beyond this one
software bit. If there are any changes to Plone licensing I'm sure
people on this list would be happy if you or someone else could
provide some summary, if and when something is being
Am 10.03.2009 um 09:14 schrieb Raphael Ritz:
If there would be a strong preference from the CMF community
here I'm sure this would be honored in our discussion.
Opinions anyone? (ideally including a reasoning beyond
I want ZPL because that's what Zope itself uses) ;-)
Actually that is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 10, 2009, at 09:14 , Raphael Ritz wrote:
Opinions anyone? (ideally including a reasoning beyond
I want ZPL because that's what Zope itself uses) ;-)
In general, commercial adoption of a software stack is made easier if
it is not
Previously Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 10, 2009, at 09:14 , Raphael Ritz wrote:
Opinions anyone? (ideally including a reasoning beyond
I want ZPL because that's what Zope itself uses) ;-)
In general, commercial adoption of a software
Am 10.03.2009 um 10:01 schrieb Wichert Akkerman:
The debate is currently focusing on GPL versus BSD license. Any
opinions
on a choice between those two would be very welcome.
Speaking as someone who hasn't written a whole lot of code: BSD.
I have a real dislike of the GPL because I think
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 10, 2009, at 10:01 , Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
In general, commercial adoption of a software stack is made easier if
it is not accompanied by a whole soup of different licenses. The
fewer
licenses, the
Previously Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On Mar 10, 2009, at 10:01 , Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
In general, commercial adoption of a software stack is made easier if
it is not accompanied by a whole soup of different licenses. The
fewer
licenses, the better. I'm
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
That's not the issue I was trying to address. I was specifically
talking about putting functionality in the most appropriate part of
the stack, meaning moving it further towards the core. If there are
bits and pieces that make more sense in the CMF then saying
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 10, 2009, at 11:08 , Martin Aspeli wrote:
I think we all agree on this. In retrospect, it would've been a better
idea to push for plone.indexer to be a part of CMF. However, I
implemented it driven by Plone's release cycle and feature
Hi!
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
That's not the issue I was trying to address. I was specifically
talking about putting functionality in the most appropriate part of
the stack, meaning moving it further towards the core. If there are
bits and pieces that
Thanks!
You already noticed that the wrapper is instantiated directly, so
that's what's going on. No magic, no component architecture.
Thanks for the clarification. The bits that confused me were:
class IndexableObjectSpecification(ObjectSpecificationDescriptor)
...
class
Thanks
Can anyone tell me if it is possible to register an adapter to
snip
This should work with plain CMF and be simple to hook into the catalogue
tool.
(For me) this is the root of the problem - it can only be hooked into
the catalog by subclassing at the moment, there is no other
On 3/10/09 1:17 AM, Charlie Clark char...@begeistert.org wrote:
Am 10.03.2009 um 10:01 schrieb Wichert Akkerman:
The debate is currently focusing on GPL versus BSD license. Any
opinions
on a choice between those two would be very welcome.
...: BSD.
+2
Charlie
--
Charlie Clark
Hi!
Miles wrote:
Thanks for the clarification. The bits that confused me were:
class IndexableObjectSpecification(ObjectSpecificationDescriptor)
...
class IndexableObjectWrapper(object):
implements(IIndexableObjectWrapper)
__providedBy__ =
Am 10.03.2009 um 10:49 schrieb Wichert Akkerman:
Perhaps in the future the Plone Foundation would be willing to donate
code to the Zope Foundation. At this moment that is a bridge too far,
and I fear that as soon as I suggest that at this point in time the
entire relicensing movement will
class IndexableObjectWrapper(object):
implements(IIndexableObjectWrapper)
__providedBy__ = IndexableObjectSpecification()
What does this code actually achieve (I get the implements bit, obviously)?!
This makes the wrapper transparent, allowing the index to look up
adapters for
yuppie wrote:
Hi!
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
That's not the issue I was trying to address. I was specifically
talking about putting functionality in the most appropriate part of
the stack, meaning moving it further towards the core. If there are
bits
Hi Miles,
This should work with plain CMF and be simple to hook into the catalogue
tool.
(For me) this is the root of the problem - it can only be hooked into
the catalog by subclassing at the moment, there is no other mechanism to
use different implementations. If there was, then
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 10, 2009, at 11:08 , Martin Aspeli wrote:
I think we all agree on this. In retrospect, it would've been a better
idea to push for plone.indexer to be a part of CMF. However, I
implemented it driven by Plone's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 10, 2009, at 14:21 , Martin Aspeli wrote:
The actual feature discussion happens on the medium-traffic
framework-team list, which you can join. In fact, it'd be great if you
did, as we'd appreciate your input, but I realise it may not be
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Is there any kind of low-traffic announcement list for things like
PLIPs? I'm not subscribed to any Plone list because of (for me at
least) signal to noise ratio fears.
There's plone-announce, but I don't think this was announced there.
yuppie wrote:
AFAICS wrapping the object before looking up adapters is unnecessary.
The catalog should do the lookup directly and the existing features
provided by IndexableObjectWrapper should be reimplemented as adapters.
Bear in mind that there is a difference between getting the wrapper
Hi Martin!
Martin Aspeli wrote:
yuppie wrote:
For the CMF project it is essential to have full control over its own
layer of the stack and to participate in the development of the Zope
layer. Using packages from the Plone repository means either using them
as a black box or joining the
Martin Aspeli wrote:
yuppie wrote:
AFAICS wrapping the object before looking up adapters is unnecessary.
The catalog should do the lookup directly and the existing features
provided by IndexableObjectWrapper should be reimplemented as adapters.
Bear in mind that there is a difference
Tres Seaver wrote:
Log message for revision 97800:
Clean out module-scope imports.
Changed:
U Products.CMFCore/trunk/Products/CMFCore/tests/test_CatalogTool.py
-=-
Modified: Products.CMFCore/trunk/Products/CMFCore/tests/test_CatalogTool.py
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
yuppie wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Log message for revision 97800:
Clean out module-scope imports.
Changed:
U Products.CMFCore/trunk/Products/CMFCore/tests/test_CatalogTool.py
-=-
Modified:
27 matches
Mail list logo
