Re: [Zope-dev] Open letters, hijacking and the like
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 12:28:25AM +0100, Lennart Regebro wrote: > >Does Linux need Linus? Yes. > > Linus disagrees with you. From > http://kerneltrap.org/article.php?sid=398 He is wrong. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Open letters, hijacking and the like
From: "Clark O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > In my opinion all the revenue generated from Zope > should go to you guys to fund more great projects. It already does. You see, Zope if free. It doesn't generate any revenue. Maybe you missed that. > Anyone got a problem with that? Not at all. In a way I guess you could say Zope generates revenue. The projects I'm currently getting payed for wouldn't have happened without Zope. And if we get any money left over from that, we will use that to fund more great projects, as I'm sure most other Zope developers would. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Open letters, hijacking and the like
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 12:28:25AM +0100, Lennart Regebro wrote: >Does Linux need Linus? Yes. Linus disagrees with you. From http://kerneltrap.org/article.php?sid=398 I wish more people realized it. Some people realize it only when they get really pissed off at me and say "Go screw yourself, I can do this on my own". And you know what? They are right too, even if they come to that conclusion for what I consider the wrong reasons. --amk ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Open letters, hijacking and the like
Just as a last comment- and this is getting tiresome even for me. My favorite freeware project is JBoss www.jboss.org. They built a really excellent J2EE server without any corporate funding. The JBoss developers manage the training and support for JBoss themselves, and use the revenue it generates to fund their development efforts. You are falling into trap that developers fall into so easily- letting some guys with MBA's step between them and the customer and then being grateful to these guys for a pittance of support or salary. In my opinion all the revenue generated from Zope should go to you guys to fund more great projects. Anyone got a problem with that? Check out how the guys at JBoss do things- one last time- Dudes. --- Danny William Adair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Clark, > > I see your point here, and I understand your > problem. > But I do not share your opinion, especially when it > comes to its conclusion. > (branching) > > Zope Corp. is not living in a dream world: > > > On the one hand ZC is this munificent benefactor > of > > Zope. > > > > On the other hand ZC is this poor cash strapped > little > > company that can't afford to take any interest in > Zope > > unless they have an immediate incentive. > > > > YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS DUDE. I AM SORRY BUT > THIS > > IS JUST NOT POSSIBLE. > > I have zope.org, and I have zope.com > It's the same company, isn't it? > It's the same people on the same payroll, isn't it? > > If I go to zope.com, I know I will definitely spend > money, probably a lot of > money. If I go to zope.org, I know I'm not going to > spend a single dime. > Guess where you'll find me? Now guess where'll find > others. This separation > makes sense, and imho it should have been done > earlier! Now that it's late, > Zope Corp has to work on its image, which would have > been easier a year ago. > (I think the new CEO's "first approach" towards the > developers community was > pretty "unfruitful". Should I put a smiley here? > N... He has learned > quickly, I even forgot his name (whoops, who said > that?)) > > I don't think ZC is a poor cash strapped little > company, though it is still > quite small. But in fact, this is totally > irrelevant: No investor (see last > line of this mail) will throw money out the window, > whether it's a lot or a > little. He wants it back x20, better in 2 or 3 three > years than in 5 or 6. > And I don't see why Zope Corp should pay "high-end" > full-time developers to > "keep the fraggles entertained" (yeah I'm one of the > fraggles, sometimes). I > do appreciate that they snip off some of their > weekly time, and support the > community(which has helped Zope Corp a lot in the > past imho). I can not and > will not pay them for this and only this, and I > don't see how you get the > idea that ZC can. > > > > > If ZC is the benefactor of zope, why can't they > > develop a plan that is independent of day to day > money > > making? > > Open-Sourcing was a nice move, since (among a lot of > other things) it opens > up business opportunities for other people. Still, > it costs a lot of money to > maintain an Open-Source project of this size. > > Zope is the BASIS of ZC's consulting and services > work, so how could you > possibly make this independent from each other? > > You can listen to Paul Everitts thoughts on this if > you take a look at the > interview he had with O'Reilly Network (quite a > while ago). Or maybe just > wait a moment... > > > > > If ZC is this little company that does not have > the > > resources to provide true leadership, then why > does > > Zope need them? > > I see true leadership, but I also see _mutual_ > benefits. I also believe that > Zope would have never come that far if DC/ZC hadn't > backed it. What it seems > to me that you are trying to do here is take > something away you never been > responsible of in the first place. If there was no > ZC/DC, there wouldn't have > been a Zope, and this is the truth that you deny. > > I respect ZC for the responsibility they are taking > more than I envy anyone > of copyrights. The ZPL has all you can ask for. > > Set up a website and promote it as the "alternative" > development site for > Zope and upcoming versions of Zope. Good luck! With > "after hour" developers > alone you will wallow in it for years. How many > people would feel attracted, > which people, and why? What would developers get on > this site? What would be > the "added value" of the site? Copies of documents > that people have written > that had been paid by a company (ZC)? > > And who will oversee the development cycle as a > whole? Me? You? When? After > "work"? So if you take the whole day for this, who's > gonna pay for your costs > of living? Oh, an investor. What should he invest > in? Why? How do you plan to > get his money back (x20)? Ohh. You want to > do this WHILE you're at > the other
Re: [Zope-dev] Open letters, hijacking and the like
Hello Clark, I see your point here, and I understand your problem. But I do not share your opinion, especially when it comes to its conclusion. (branching) Zope Corp. is not living in a dream world: > On the one hand ZC is this munificent benefactor of > Zope. > > On the other hand ZC is this poor cash strapped little > company that can't afford to take any interest in Zope > unless they have an immediate incentive. > > YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS DUDE. I AM SORRY BUT THIS > IS JUST NOT POSSIBLE. I have zope.org, and I have zope.com It's the same company, isn't it? It's the same people on the same payroll, isn't it? If I go to zope.com, I know I will definitely spend money, probably a lot of money. If I go to zope.org, I know I'm not going to spend a single dime. Guess where you'll find me? Now guess where'll find others. This separation makes sense, and imho it should have been done earlier! Now that it's late, Zope Corp has to work on its image, which would have been easier a year ago. (I think the new CEO's "first approach" towards the developers community was pretty "unfruitful". Should I put a smiley here? N... He has learned quickly, I even forgot his name (whoops, who said that?)) I don't think ZC is a poor cash strapped little company, though it is still quite small. But in fact, this is totally irrelevant: No investor (see last line of this mail) will throw money out the window, whether it's a lot or a little. He wants it back x20, better in 2 or 3 three years than in 5 or 6. And I don't see why Zope Corp should pay "high-end" full-time developers to "keep the fraggles entertained" (yeah I'm one of the fraggles, sometimes). I do appreciate that they snip off some of their weekly time, and support the community(which has helped Zope Corp a lot in the past imho). I can not and will not pay them for this and only this, and I don't see how you get the idea that ZC can. > > If ZC is the benefactor of zope, why can't they > develop a plan that is independent of day to day money > making? Open-Sourcing was a nice move, since (among a lot of other things) it opens up business opportunities for other people. Still, it costs a lot of money to maintain an Open-Source project of this size. Zope is the BASIS of ZC's consulting and services work, so how could you possibly make this independent from each other? You can listen to Paul Everitts thoughts on this if you take a look at the interview he had with O'Reilly Network (quite a while ago). Or maybe just wait a moment... > > If ZC is this little company that does not have the > resources to provide true leadership, then why does > Zope need them? I see true leadership, but I also see _mutual_ benefits. I also believe that Zope would have never come that far if DC/ZC hadn't backed it. What it seems to me that you are trying to do here is take something away you never been responsible of in the first place. If there was no ZC/DC, there wouldn't have been a Zope, and this is the truth that you deny. I respect ZC for the responsibility they are taking more than I envy anyone of copyrights. The ZPL has all you can ask for. Set up a website and promote it as the "alternative" development site for Zope and upcoming versions of Zope. Good luck! With "after hour" developers alone you will wallow in it for years. How many people would feel attracted, which people, and why? What would developers get on this site? What would be the "added value" of the site? Copies of documents that people have written that had been paid by a company (ZC)? And who will oversee the development cycle as a whole? Me? You? When? After "work"? So if you take the whole day for this, who's gonna pay for your costs of living? Oh, an investor. What should he invest in? Why? How do you plan to get his money back (x20)? Ohh. You want to do this WHILE you're at the other job :-) ZC is a company "dude", and a company has a business plan. That plan either fits yours or it doesn't. Of course they're not playing with marbles. ZOPE.ORG IS NOT ZC'S "HOBBY" (but it looks like it's yours) Customer to development company: - "So what's the technical platform for this project?" - "Zope" - "Zope, uhu... Whose Software is that? Will this thing exist as long as our project exists? Where will we get support?" - Ah well... The Software belongs to "zope.org", actually no one specific. It's open source, developed and maintained by people who find it a "nice" piece of software, and work on it after finishing their real job during the day. Support? Well there are a couple of email addresses on that site, I think they answer pretty quickly... Uh-huh.. Duuhhh... I support ZC's approach. Most def. btw, Check the "corporate guide for business decisions" (or something like that) on zope.org to see some of the benefits we as developers have from a corporate approach. > ... > > Zope would not have trouble finding corporate > sponsors even f
Re: [Zope-dev] Open letters, hijacking and the like
From: "Clark O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > If ZC is the benefactor of zope, why can't they > develop a plan that is independent of day to day money > making? > > If ZC is this little company that does not have the > resources to provide true leadership, then why does > Zope need them? What would Linux be without Linus Thorvalds? If you take the Linux core and start modifying it without Linus backing you up, and finally end up with a product not compatible with the Linus approved Linux, what would the result be? Does Linux need Linus? Yes. Is Linus a big company that is pumping loads of money into Linux development? No. The same can be said of Zope. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] WebService package
hello, there's a collector issue at http://collector.zope.org/Zope/62. thanks, Sean ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Open letters, hijacking and the like
Clark O'Brien wrote: > > I am hearing to different stories, sometimes from the > same people. You obviously care enough about Zope that you continue taking the time to post to this mailing list. Why do you care? What do you want from Zope? (software, community, corporation; you choose) -- Steve Alexander ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Open letters, hijacking and the like
I am hearing to different stories, sometimes from the same people. On the one hand ZC is this munificent benefactor of Zope. On the other hand ZC is this poor cash strapped little company that can't afford to take any interest in Zope unless they have an immediate incentive. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS DUDE. I AM SORRY BUT THIS IS JUST NOT POSSIBLE. If ZC is the benefactor of zope, why can't they develop a plan that is independent of day to day money making? If ZC is this little company that does not have the resources to provide true leadership, then why does Zope need them? Clark PS I personally don't think ANY open source project needs a corporate sponsor- much less Zope. But to those who do- and sadly there seem to be many of them on this list- I would say that these obsequious expressions of thanks and gratitude to ZC are uncalled for. I believe Zope would not have trouble finding corporate sponsors even from fortune 500 companies like IBM or HP. But why anyone would want corporate "Mothering" is beyond me though. --- Danny William Adair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi! > > Wow, this is the first time I have more zope-dev > mails in my inbox than from > the "main" list (and I'm very happy that all this > stays on one list). > > What I have seen from ZC up til now seems like they > disclose practically > everything but their client base, ok and maybe plans > for a commercial Zope > product (I count two now that have been dropped, > this does not include Zope > itself). Efforts have been made to separate the > "geeks" from the > "tie-fighters" (.org/.com), but I can't see any > negative side-effects for the > development of Zope itself. Maybe "not yet", but, > and this goes out to Mr > O'Brien: It needs two to tango. Fair enough. ZC > knows that, and especially > Paul Everitt has pointed out more than once the > dedication that ZC has > towards "the community". > > I want to thank Zope Corporation for everything > that's been done up til now. > This is the kind of track I will stay on. I see this > working. > > Whatever parts of Zope don't work as expected, I > don't know in how far I > could ever put blame about that on ZC. These guys > are more open to new ideas, > efforts from the community and mutual benefits than > anyone else I have met > (in my short life, ok granted). Akm's worries and > complaints are legitimate > (and he has already corrected his language), and I > see people reacting > _immediately_. What more can you expect? In my > opinion it was just a > contretemps that priorities in the User API were set > differently than > expected from someone who dedicates a hell of a lot > of time to that field of > development. My personal opinion is that ZC should > give akm a CVS account and > let him put some elaborate changes to the user api > for 2.5, apparently he > knows exactly what he's doing. > > "Dude": Do it better and _then_ complain. ZC's not > yo mama, feeding you > software with a spoon. It looks like you're spilling > it all, anyway. > > Take a look at the ZPL, take a look at the Public > CVS, the Wikis, the > fishbowls, the open-sourced literature, and then > think again. "Closure of > code / internals" is not an arguable point when it > comes to Zope, that's just > being paranoid. > > You are welcome to take from the community, you are > welcome to contribute to > the community, you are welcome to make money with > Zope. It's all there. > Closure of code is not what will separate the wheat > from the chaff, > business-wise. > > Couldn't-resisting-ly yours, > Danny > > > ___ > Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev > ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** > (Related lists - > > http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce > http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ) __ Do You Yahoo!? Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping. http://shopping.yahoo.com ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Fully Zope-based Mailman Version
At 04:48 PM 12/2/2001 -0500, Fred Wilson Horch wrote: >This is great! Finally somebody is working on integrating Mailman with >Zope! Well, I don't know whether I want to call it working on it yet, but I am prototyping. Thanks to the great API that seems to go very well. However, even though a couple people suggested to me to use ZPT, nobody has yet written the ZPT script for my manage_admin example. I need that in order to decide which one is better in this case to use. >Count me in -- we had a volunteer struggle with the Mailman code over >the summer before giving up. It is not that hard, but please feel free to help us hack. I send you access information in a private mail. >Maybe Zope already supported CGI scripts, but I sure couldn't figure >out how to make them work! You see the first goal will be to get rid of CGI scripts and replace them with Zope DTML or ZPT. This is very easy to do and it is just very time consuming to reimplement all these scripts (even though I think it will be very much worth it). After that we will attack the data structures and try to make them be stored in the ZODB, which does not seem to be the big problem. We basically strip Mailman to its pure logic, by taking away the presentation (Web) and the storage. Again, this seems to be no problem due to the great modularity of Mailman. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU - Physics and Chemistry Student Web2k - Web Design/Development & Technical Project Management ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] WebService package
On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 04:50:14PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I found a couple of problems while I was playing around with the > WebServices package; I think this patch fixes them. The package looks > very nice, especially the documentation. Unfortunately, I don't > understand SOAP well enough yet to make any intelligible comments... Hi Sean, Could you file your patch in the Zoe Collector at: http://collector.zope.org/Zope This way Brian Lloyd, the developer of the WebServices package, can find it as well. Thanks! -- Martijn Pieters | Software Engineer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com/ | Creators of Zope http://www.zope.org/ - ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] WebService package
hello, I found a couple of problems while I was playing around with the WebServices package; I think this patch fixes them. The package looks very nice, especially the documentation. Unfortunately, I don't understand SOAP well enough yet to make any intelligible comments... Sean Index: SOAPMessage.py === RCS file: /cvs-repository/Packages/WebService/SOAPMessage.py,v retrieving revision 1.1 diff -u -r1.1 SOAPMessage.py --- SOAPMessage.py 26 Nov 2001 16:18:22 - 1.1 +++ SOAPMessage.py 2 Dec 2001 22:35:23 - @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ def getParameter(self, name): """Return the named message parameter of the SOAP response.""" -for item in self.params: +for item in self.parameters: if item.name == name: return item return None Index: Transports.py === RCS file: /cvs-repository/Packages/WebService/Transports.py,v retrieving revision 1.4 diff -u -r1.4 Transports.py --- Transports.py 29 Nov 2001 22:18:02 - 1.4 +++ Transports.py 2 Dec 2001 22:35:23 - @@ -51,12 +51,11 @@ raise ValueError( 'This Python installation does not have SSL support.' ) -conn = TimeoutHTTPS(host, None, self.timeout) +conn = TimeoutHTTPS(host, None, self.timeout, +key_file=self.key_file, +cert_file=self.cert_file) else: -conn = TimeoutHTTP(host, None, self.timeout, - key_file = self.key_file, - cert_file = self.cert_file - ) +conn = TimeoutHTTP(host, None, self.timeout) conn.putrequest(verb, path) ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Another open letter. :-)
Danny William Adair wrote: [snip] > Have you seen this interview? > http://www.zopera.org/site/Members/odeckmyn/iv_paul_2001 (recently > announced on this list) > > Quote: "Regarding CMF, we expect it to disappear in its current > form, ..." > > Introduced to us as the "Portal Toolkit", later labeled as "probably > evolving into a commercial product" (couldn't find it in the > archives when I tried a minute ago, but I know I wasn't dreaming > when I read it), then renamed to "Content Management Framework" and > the out-of-the-box solution for site developers that need > membership, skinning, an easy content management interface, and > pluggable add-ons, Paul Everitt now calls it "a big prototype for > the new architecture". Although I think that this is not how it all > started, not even how it meant to be less than a year ago, you see > that your concerns are no longer something to worry about. The > "good things" will be taken to the Zope core, the rest will remain > interesting only for people who actually "implement". Yikes! I need to get a clarification back to Olivier regarding my point on all this. First, the PTK/CMF evolved separately from Zope, which made it move pretty quickly. All along with thought in terms of the PTK/CMF trying out things that the more conservative Zope development wasn't going after. As we started thinking about Zope3 and a component architecture, we took a look at some of the ideas in the CMF and felt they were a valid approach. As such, the CMF could be thought of as a shipping prototype for ideas that will make it into Zope3. It's true that much of the CMF code should disappear if Zope3 does its job. Perhaps around 50% of the Python code, for instance. The remainder is in areas that we had mixed success on anyway -- namely, the CMFDemo portal doesn't really try to be an out-of-the-box finished product. Most of us would be thrilled to see a different "killer app" develop that took the place of this in Zope3. Certainly existing CMF users shouldn't be worried. For instance, we're planning two important customer engagements that are _just_ starting which will be CMF based. We want to work with people doing projects similar to the CMF and get some common ideas/machinery into the component architecture. Regarding the PTK possibly becoming a commercial product...well, some evolutionary paths are dead ends. :^) --Paul ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: core i18n support (was [Zope-dev] Open Letter to zope-dev)
Who ever takes the lead, I will follow What I believe however, it should make no difference which of the two approaches is used. Even to an extent that both could live next to each other. What we need is a translation of everything that ever has a chance to bubble up to the screen. This is done by wrapping it in a translate call. By default this translation does nothing. Just returns its input unaltered. This costs very little processing time but provides a hook where an other process that does the real processing take over. We have been successfully doing that (using C++ and Lisp) for well over 10 years. I am using it now in the CMF sites I created (not many yet). So our first task is not to decide what technique to use for the translation but to list what should be translated, and how to best structure the translation process. By structuring I mean splitting Zope into parts should be considered a unit that is translated as a whole.CMF would be one such unit. i18n covers more than only software translation. However this is where we must start. Since Zope does not have a complicated userinterface I believe it is no complicated task. Guet Nacht! Robert - Original Message - From: "Paul Everitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Robert Rottermann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 7:13 PM Subject: Re: core i18n support (was [Zope-dev] Open Letter to zope-dev) > > As both Robert and Joachim (in another message) have noted, core i18n > support is blocked by a single issue: there are two different approaches > and insufficient consensus about resolving them. > > The first criteria that I have is whether someone is willing to become a > CVS contributor and shepherd i18n in a responsible fashion, as Martijn > Faassen has done with XML. In this sense we suffer from an embarassment > of riches: both Localizer and ZBabel have people willing to step up and > provide leadership. > > Unfortunately there isn't someone with sufficient authority on the > subject to annoint one as more right than the other. And an arbitrary > decision by ZC is sure to leave hard feelings. Unfortunately this needs > to get cleared up soon, so that an i18n team can start influencing the > component architecture. > > I suggest that Stefane and Juan David (Localizer/Nuxeo) and Stephan, > Andrew, and Joachim (ZBabel/iuveno) have a little chat and make a > recommendation for a small next step. > > --Paul > > Robert Rottermann wrote: > > > Andreas, > > sorry if I have not reacted to a questions for assistance in the realm of > > i18n. I must have missed them. > > I rarely go to EuroZope since this site seems badly maintained. > > > > However I really would like to help with the internationalization of Zope > > since most of what we do here a my company must be multilingual. > > I do have considerable experience making programs "translatable" and I did a > > multilanguage CMF (with which I never was really happy) > > Some 6 Months ago I started to collect what is there regarding i18n and > > Zope. I did get a sizable number of answers. However there where two rather > > unfortunate tendencies: > > - multiple, different and incompatible attempts from "our" side > > - missing involvement and therefore no "shepherding" from ZC's side > > > > If, as Paul assures, the second point is about to be rectified it might be > > now the time to do a second such compilation and then start "doing" it. > > > > Robert > > > > - Original Message - > > > > From: "Andreas Jung" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Joachim Werner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Paul Everitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > > "Robert Rottermann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 2:50 PM > > Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] Open Letter to zope-dev > > > > > > > >>- Original Message - > >>From: "Joachim Werner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>To: "Paul Everitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Robert Rottermann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 08:22 > >>Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] Open Letter to zope-dev > >> > >> > >> > The second is pretty exciting as well. I saw a presentation in Paris > > > by > > > Juan David Palomar, of Localizer fame. (The presentation is now up at > http://estce.act.uji.es:9673/localizer). The presentation impressed > > > me > > > on the need to get someone into the core of Zope that knows all these > details, but also convinced me that the Zope3 effort needs to > > > anticipate > > > the needs of i18n and l10n. > > ZBabel and Localizer are good starts, but as jdavid says, both should > > > be > > > thought of as non-core projects that start influencing the core > step-by-step. > > >>>Hi! > >>> > >>>I fully agree that ZBabel and Localizer don't have to be core projects > >>> > >>right > >> > >>>now. But the core must be made fit for i18n to make sure that we don't > >>> > >>ha
Re: [Zope-dev] Fully Zope-based Mailman Version
This is great! Finally somebody is working on integrating Mailman with Zope! Count me in -- we had a volunteer struggle with the Mailman code over the summer before giving up. Fred P.S. By the way, last week I added CGI 1.1 support to Zope 2.3.3. This allows us to run the existing Mailman code (version 2.0.7) as a CGI script without having to run another web server besides Zope / ZServer. If anyone is interested in this code, please let me know. Right now it is an external method that requires the PathHandler product. The basic idea is to parse the URL using PathHandler, which calls our external method. Our external method sets up the required environment variables (has to correct a few glitches introduced by Zope in the environment dictionary), forks and execs the CGI script with the cleaned up environment dictionary, parses the output the CGI script returns, cleans up its forked children, and returns the CGI script output to the browser. This is all working fine with Mailman 2.0.7, Python 1.5.2 and Zope 2.3.3. I've tested a few other CGI scripts. YMMV. Maybe Zope already supported CGI scripts, but I sure couldn't figure out how to make them work! -- Fred Wilson Horch mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Executive Director, EcoAccess http://ecoaccess.org/ P.O. Box 2823, Durham, NC 27715-2823phone: 919.419-8567 ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: core i18n support (was [Zope-dev] Open Letter to zope-dev)
Hi, as far as I understand the issue, both I18n solutions coud agree on a common set of features they need in the Zope-core. I think booth should formulate, what their requests are. --On Sonntag, Dezember 02, 2001 13:13:30 -0500 Paul Everitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As both Robert and Joachim (in another message) have noted, core i18n > support is blocked by a single issue: there are two different approaches > and insufficient consensus about resolving them. > > The first criteria that I have is whether someone is willing to become a > CVS contributor and shepherd i18n in a responsible fashion, as Martijn > Faassen has done with XML. In this sense we suffer from an embarassment > of riches: both Localizer and ZBabel have people willing to step up and > provide leadership. > > Unfortunately there isn't someone with sufficient authority on the > subject to annoint one as more right than the other. And an arbitrary > decision by ZC is sure to leave hard feelings. Unfortunately this needs > to get cleared up soon, so that an i18n team can start influencing the > component architecture. > > I suggest that Stefane and Juan David (Localizer/Nuxeo) and Stephan, > Andrew, and Joachim (ZBabel/iuveno) have a little chat and make a > recommendation for a small next step. > > --Paul > > Robert Rottermann wrote: > >> Andreas, >> sorry if I have not reacted to a questions for assistance in the realm of >> i18n. I must have missed them. >> I rarely go to EuroZope since this site seems badly maintained. >> >> However I really would like to help with the internationalization of Zope >> since most of what we do here a my company must be multilingual. >> I do have considerable experience making programs "translatable" and I >> did a multilanguage CMF (with which I never was really happy) >> Some 6 Months ago I started to collect what is there regarding i18n and >> Zope. I did get a sizable number of answers. However there where two >> rather unfortunate tendencies: >> - multiple, different and incompatible attempts from "our" side >> - missing involvement and therefore no "shepherding" from ZC's side >> >> If, as Paul assures, the second point is about to be rectified it might >> be now the time to do a second such compilation and then start "doing" >> it. >> >> Robert >> >> - Original Message - >> >> From: "Andreas Jung" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "Joachim Werner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Paul Everitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; >> "Robert Rottermann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 2:50 PM >> Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] Open Letter to zope-dev >> >> >> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Joachim Werner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: "Paul Everitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Robert Rottermann" >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 08:22 >>> Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] Open Letter to zope-dev >>> >>> >>> > The second is pretty exciting as well. I saw a presentation in Paris > >> by >> > Juan David Palomar, of Localizer fame. (The presentation is now up at > http://estce.act.uji.es:9673/localizer). The presentation impressed > >> me >> > on the need to get someone into the core of Zope that knows all these > details, but also convinced me that the Zope3 effort needs to > >> anticipate >> > the needs of i18n and l10n. > > ZBabel and Localizer are good starts, but as jdavid says, both should > >> be >> > thought of as non-core projects that start influencing the core > step-by-step. > Hi! I fully agree that ZBabel and Localizer don't have to be core projects >>> right >>> now. But the core must be made fit for i18n to make sure that we don't >>> have >>> to patch things like the user folder implementation or the Help! button >> in >> the code. In Zopw 2.5, there still seem to be "hot spots" to fix with >>> regard >>> to i18n. >>> >>> Of course there are hot spots. I have asked multiple times for help on >>> the mailing >>> lists and the Eurozope site to identify such related hot spots. >>> Also I had expect some input of the community regarding at unicode >>> support inside Zope. But there has been no feedback. It looks like no >>> one needs unicode >>> support in Zope ?! :-) Anyway, as a first step Zope 2.5 provides full >>> unicode >>> support for the ZCatalog. I would like to see some volunteers that could >>> help >>> to set up a list of requirements (the list is almost there on the >>> Eurozope site >>> I think) and possible solutions that could be integrated into the Zope >>> >> core. >> >>> Referring to the "open letter to zope-dev" I could also charge the >>> >> community >> >>> for zero feedback. But this is not the place and time for flamewars. >>> >> Instead >> >>> we should bundle the power of ZC and the community. The opening of the >>> CVS is a good starting point but I would like to see
Correction - was: Re: [Zope-dev] Another open letter. :-)
On Monday 03 December 2001 10:09, Danny William Adair wrote: > Introduced to us as the "Portal Toolkit", later labeled as "probably > evolving into a commercial product" (couldn't find it in the archives when > I tried a minute ago, but I know I wasn't dreaming when I read it), then > renamed to "Content Management Framework" and the out-of-the-box solution Sorry, maybe I _was_ dreaming. Commercial _support_ (contracts) was planned for a PTK 1.0 release. (search [EMAIL PROTECTED] for "commercial and PTK") Sorry bout that, Danny ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: core i18n support (was [Zope-dev] Open Letter to zope-dev)
Interesting. Could somebody make a quick summary of the different approaces used by ZBabel and localizer? I won't have time to download them and read the code for at least a month or two. - Original Message - From: "Paul Everitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Robert Rottermann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 7:13 PM Subject: Re: core i18n support (was [Zope-dev] Open Letter to zope-dev) > > As both Robert and Joachim (in another message) have noted, core i18n > support is blocked by a single issue: there are two different approaches > and insufficient consensus about resolving them. > > The first criteria that I have is whether someone is willing to become a > CVS contributor and shepherd i18n in a responsible fashion, as Martijn > Faassen has done with XML. In this sense we suffer from an embarassment > of riches: both Localizer and ZBabel have people willing to step up and > provide leadership. > > Unfortunately there isn't someone with sufficient authority on the > subject to annoint one as more right than the other. And an arbitrary > decision by ZC is sure to leave hard feelings. Unfortunately this needs > to get cleared up soon, so that an i18n team can start influencing the > component architecture. > > I suggest that Stefane and Juan David (Localizer/Nuxeo) and Stephan, > Andrew, and Joachim (ZBabel/iuveno) have a little chat and make a > recommendation for a small next step. > > --Paul > > Robert Rottermann wrote: > > > Andreas, > > sorry if I have not reacted to a questions for assistance in the realm of > > i18n. I must have missed them. > > I rarely go to EuroZope since this site seems badly maintained. > > > > However I really would like to help with the internationalization of Zope > > since most of what we do here a my company must be multilingual. > > I do have considerable experience making programs "translatable" and I did a > > multilanguage CMF (with which I never was really happy) > > Some 6 Months ago I started to collect what is there regarding i18n and > > Zope. I did get a sizable number of answers. However there where two rather > > unfortunate tendencies: > > - multiple, different and incompatible attempts from "our" side > > - missing involvement and therefore no "shepherding" from ZC's side > > > > If, as Paul assures, the second point is about to be rectified it might be > > now the time to do a second such compilation and then start "doing" it. > > > > Robert > > > > - Original Message - > > > > From: "Andreas Jung" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Joachim Werner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Paul Everitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > > "Robert Rottermann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 2:50 PM > > Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] Open Letter to zope-dev > > > > > > > >>- Original Message - > >>From: "Joachim Werner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>To: "Paul Everitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Robert Rottermann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 08:22 > >>Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] Open Letter to zope-dev > >> > >> > >> > The second is pretty exciting as well. I saw a presentation in Paris > > > by > > > Juan David Palomar, of Localizer fame. (The presentation is now up at > http://estce.act.uji.es:9673/localizer). The presentation impressed > > > me > > > on the need to get someone into the core of Zope that knows all these > details, but also convinced me that the Zope3 effort needs to > > > anticipate > > > the needs of i18n and l10n. > > ZBabel and Localizer are good starts, but as jdavid says, both should > > > be > > > thought of as non-core projects that start influencing the core > step-by-step. > > >>>Hi! > >>> > >>>I fully agree that ZBabel and Localizer don't have to be core projects > >>> > >>right > >> > >>>now. But the core must be made fit for i18n to make sure that we don't > >>> > >>have > >> > >>>to patch things like the user folder implementation or the Help! button > >>> > > in > > > >>>the code. In Zopw 2.5, there still seem to be "hot spots" to fix with > >>> > >>regard > >> > >>>to i18n. > >>> > >> > >>Of course there are hot spots. I have asked multiple times for help on the > >>mailing > >>lists and the Eurozope site to identify such related hot spots. > >>Also I had expect some input of the community regarding at unicode support > >>inside Zope. But there has been no feedback. It looks like no one needs > >>unicode > >>support in Zope ?! :-) Anyway, as a first step Zope 2.5 provides full > >>unicode > >>support for the ZCatalog. I would like to see some volunteers that could > >>help > >>to set up a list of requirements (the list is almost there on the Eurozope > >>site > >>I think) and possible solutions that could be integrated into the Zope > >> > > core. > > > >>Referring to the "open letter to zope-dev" I could also charge the > >> > > commu
Re: [Zope-dev] Another open letter. :-)
From: "Dieter Maurer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Here are some things that I feel should be introduced into Zope: > > - Workflow support. (Because everybody needs it) > You know DCWorkflow? Yes. I think it should be moved off CMF and into Zope proper. > > - Versioning. (Because it's hard to do as a product) > "CVSFolder" is quite near: I see currently two remaining issues: Doesn't that store Zope objects in CVS? Or have I missed something completely? If it does, it's not what I'm talking about. The Versioning proposal that is in the dogbowl is what I'm talking about. I was just stressing that it is important. > > - Internationalization. (Because it's hard to do as a product) > ??? What is your question? > > - Better user management. (Because everybody needs it) > Apparently, I do not... > I can live with the existing extension products (true, not with > the one in the Zope core). My point exactly. :-) > I will soon build my first large application with CMF. We will see > whether I will agree with you after that Good luck! ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Another open letter. :-)
Hello Lennart,
On Monday 03 December 2001 05:06, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> After the discussion here I'm slowly starting to form a picture in my mind
> of how to "solve" the "problems".
>
> First some basic facts of life:
> - Zope corp needs to do what Zope corp thinks it can make money on.
>
> - "We" (that is the Zope community) need to get some features into the base
> of Zope because:
> a. It's not effective that we all solve the same problems
> independantly. b. Some features are hard to do as products.
>
> - It is imperative that there is a single point of control for Zope, ie no
> branching.
>
>
> This means Zope corp needs to control what goes into Zope, but the
> community needs to tell them what should go there, and the community has to
> help to put it in.
> To achieve this, we need better community support systems. That is, we need
> a proper community site, with discussion forums, a merged
> collector/proposal application with proper threaded discussions and applied
> workflow for proposal states.
> The projects that get started also need their protected areas on the site
> with discussion forums and their own CVS trees.
>
> In all, this would support a better inflow of comments from the community,
> it would make it easier for community members to see the responses to their
> input, and it would be easier to start projects with non ZC people involved
> in programming.
Definitely. And definitely there needs to be more technical "infrastructure"
on zope.org to support this way of working. As another result, less people
would find it necessary to move their projects to sourceforge. Just imagine
sourceforge functionality plus wikis, plus fishbowls, plus collector. I like
the fishbowl's standardization of a common workflow, and I would love to see
more integration of all the other parts. I believe this could speed up and
stabilize Zope development drastically. Sometimes I even find _navigating_
through _what's_there_ hard, and I'm afraid to spend time writing something
that someone else may have already written, and which might just be hidden
somewhere in the haystacks...
>
>
> Here are some things that I feel should be introduced into Zope:
> - Workflow support. (Because everybody needs it)
> - Versioning. (Because it's hard to do as a product)
> - Internationalization. (Because it's hard to do as a product)
> - Better user management. (Because everybody needs it)
- Documentation
(Because everybody needs it - at some point of his/her Zope life)
>
> Also, Zope would benefit from the inclusion of several products that
> improve the products included in Zope. Many people have found some objects
> lacking in functionality, and added that functionality and put it up on
> Zope.org. Many of these improved products could easily replace the products
> that come with Zope today, thereby giving a better "wow" factor to Zope
> without much effort.
I think I am not the only one that's afraid of straw fires when it comes to
Zope's "wow factor". The decision, which patch/product/add-on should make it
to the core and which shouldn't, is not easy. This decision has always been
made by ZC, and for the time being I found this fair enough, though it seemed
to me that they have been clobbered over the head with patches so much that
it became just too much work to review every single one in detail (there are
_still_, for months now, so many patches to the tree tag, that enhance its
functionality exactly the way that - imho - the tree tag was meant to work,
and they still haven't made it to the core). It looks as if out of
desperation(convenience?) the burden of proof is being put on the patcher.
What I would really love would be a regular poll for developers so that ZC
can find out what "the community" would like to see move into the core. And
not too abstract (I don't want to vote for "Internationalization", I want to
vote for either "ZBabel" or "Localizer", we're not in parliament here). Pick
20 patches/products, and let the community decide over the priorities. Let ZC
be the final judge, but let the jury pass their decision ("advice") first.
You will always have the problem of this or that patch to apply to a very
specific problem of yours. That's why you wrote it. Okay, this patch is
essential for your site to work properly, but 99% of the other developers
don't need it. If this is the case: tough luck. Pray that they run into the
same problems some day. But for the time being, I don't see this causal
coherence when it comes to "should and if yes then when will this be taken to
the core". So who do I blame? Some people were very quick with their decision
here... (see last threads on this list)
>
> I also feel there are things that could be removed. And now I'm gonna say
> bad things about parts of zope some people probably love, and they will
> hate me for this, but I'll have to live with that. This is my view only. I
> have on occasion been known to be completely wrong. :
Re: [Zope-dev] Another open letter. :-)
Lennart Regebro writes: > ... > Here are some things that I feel should be introduced into Zope: > - Workflow support. (Because everybody needs it) You know DCWorkflow? > - Versioning. (Because it's hard to do as a product) "CVSFolder" is quite near: I see currently two remaining issues: * Artificial ever changing "id" values in XML exports which makes automatic merging difficult * discontinuity for subfolders with their own "CVS" and restriction to "Folder" rather than arbitrary "ObjectManagers". I may soon address both issues, unless Steve is faster > - Internationalization. (Because it's hard to do as a product) ??? > - Better user management. (Because everybody needs it) Apparently, I do not... I can live with the existing extension products (true, not with the one in the Zope core). > > I also feel there are things that could be removed. And now I'm gonna say > bad things about parts of zope some people probably love, and they will hate > me for this, but I'll have to live with that. This is my view only. I have > on occasion been known to be completely wrong. :-) > > - Don't do any more work on ZClasses, and eventually drop it. To me they do > not seem easier to work with than Python, they are messier and not as > flexible. I like ZClasses. Simple Web applications can very easily be build... > - I feel that CMF is a failure. It doesn't do what is promised, it's very > hard to understand and many parts of it are simply designed so badly and > incorrectly that they are practically useless. Drop CMF. Take the good parts > and integrate them directly into the Zope base to make Zope a better > platform form content management applications, and forget about the rest. I do not think that CMF is the solution to all problems but in general it seems very useful. I will soon build my first large application with CMF. We will see whether I will agree with you after that Dieter ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: core i18n support (was [Zope-dev] Open Letter to zope-dev)
As both Robert and Joachim (in another message) have noted, core i18n support is blocked by a single issue: there are two different approaches and insufficient consensus about resolving them. The first criteria that I have is whether someone is willing to become a CVS contributor and shepherd i18n in a responsible fashion, as Martijn Faassen has done with XML. In this sense we suffer from an embarassment of riches: both Localizer and ZBabel have people willing to step up and provide leadership. Unfortunately there isn't someone with sufficient authority on the subject to annoint one as more right than the other. And an arbitrary decision by ZC is sure to leave hard feelings. Unfortunately this needs to get cleared up soon, so that an i18n team can start influencing the component architecture. I suggest that Stefane and Juan David (Localizer/Nuxeo) and Stephan, Andrew, and Joachim (ZBabel/iuveno) have a little chat and make a recommendation for a small next step. --Paul Robert Rottermann wrote: > Andreas, > sorry if I have not reacted to a questions for assistance in the realm of > i18n. I must have missed them. > I rarely go to EuroZope since this site seems badly maintained. > > However I really would like to help with the internationalization of Zope > since most of what we do here a my company must be multilingual. > I do have considerable experience making programs "translatable" and I did a > multilanguage CMF (with which I never was really happy) > Some 6 Months ago I started to collect what is there regarding i18n and > Zope. I did get a sizable number of answers. However there where two rather > unfortunate tendencies: > - multiple, different and incompatible attempts from "our" side > - missing involvement and therefore no "shepherding" from ZC's side > > If, as Paul assures, the second point is about to be rectified it might be > now the time to do a second such compilation and then start "doing" it. > > Robert > > - Original Message - > > From: "Andreas Jung" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Joachim Werner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Paul Everitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > "Robert Rottermann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 2:50 PM > Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] Open Letter to zope-dev > > > >>- Original Message - >>From: "Joachim Werner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: "Paul Everitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Robert Rottermann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 08:22 >>Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] Open Letter to zope-dev >> >> >> The second is pretty exciting as well. I saw a presentation in Paris > by > Juan David Palomar, of Localizer fame. (The presentation is now up at http://estce.act.uji.es:9673/localizer). The presentation impressed > me > on the need to get someone into the core of Zope that knows all these details, but also convinced me that the Zope3 effort needs to > anticipate > the needs of i18n and l10n. ZBabel and Localizer are good starts, but as jdavid says, both should > be > thought of as non-core projects that start influencing the core step-by-step. >>>Hi! >>> >>>I fully agree that ZBabel and Localizer don't have to be core projects >>> >>right >> >>>now. But the core must be made fit for i18n to make sure that we don't >>> >>have >> >>>to patch things like the user folder implementation or the Help! button >>> > in > >>>the code. In Zopw 2.5, there still seem to be "hot spots" to fix with >>> >>regard >> >>>to i18n. >>> >> >>Of course there are hot spots. I have asked multiple times for help on the >>mailing >>lists and the Eurozope site to identify such related hot spots. >>Also I had expect some input of the community regarding at unicode support >>inside Zope. But there has been no feedback. It looks like no one needs >>unicode >>support in Zope ?! :-) Anyway, as a first step Zope 2.5 provides full >>unicode >>support for the ZCatalog. I would like to see some volunteers that could >>help >>to set up a list of requirements (the list is almost there on the Eurozope >>site >>I think) and possible solutions that could be integrated into the Zope >> > core. > >>Referring to the "open letter to zope-dev" I could also charge the >> > community > >>for zero feedback. But this is not the place and time for flamewars. >> > Instead > >>we should bundle the power of ZC and the community. The opening of the CVS >>is a good starting point but I would like to see more people contributing. >> >>Cheers, >>Andreas >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Fully Zope-based Mailman Version
At 11:21 AM 12/2/2001 -0600, Stephan Richter wrote: >Mmmh, actually, if you (anyone) is willing to work on it, what the heck, I >give you FTP access (the restriction is that I have to know you from >previous discussions) to the Zope Tree/Products as well, so you can start >making some progress there as well. Cool, eight (8) people have now already access to my little development installation. Could this be a way of Extreme Programming remotely over the net? Well, I am certainly open for the test drive! Mmh, of course problems can arise in terms cancelling each others work, but if you work with versioning and CVS (for the Python Code maybe), you should be able to avoid that (assuming that everyone creates their own username, once they are in). It is certainly not made for a long-term condition, but I believe it will be great to address the most obvious initial issues. Once they are solved a design can be made with some "Getting Started" instructions and everyone can develop on their local machine. But I would still keep the test-Zope up and running, so people can check-in and test their latest advancements and there will be always a place where the latest functional code is publicly viewable and executable. Security is of course another issue, this is why I limited the access a little bit. But I think one must calculate with some of the security risks in order to increase development performance. That's it for now. If you want to be part of this little experiment, E-mail me and I give you the info you need. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU - Physics and Chemistry Student Web2k - Web Design/Development & Technical Project Management ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Fully Zope-based Mailman Version
At 03:55 PM 12/2/2001 +, Chris Withers wrote: >Stephan Richter wrote: > > > > >1. Convert the HTML screens to Zope DTML and connect the functionality to > > >Mailman. > > > > Okay, I just wrote a proof of concept by simulating the admin intro screen > > and it works just fine. The most amount of work will come from the HTML > > page translations into DTML. > >Can I suggest you use ZPT rather than DTML and make your life easier in >the long >run? I haven't looked at ZPT at all yet, simply because I did not have to and usually my DTML is minimal, since I develop all logical features in Python in anyway. However, now that it becomes Zope Core Component that might be a possible choice. How do you think will ZPT be better (other than that DTML is not the future)? I just installed ZPT on the Mailman-Zope installation. I would like someone on the mailing list to convert the manage_admin.dtml script to manage_admin_zpt (I created the bare script already) inside this Zope Installation. I will give you the necessary access once you reply. Mmmh, actually, if you (anyone) is willing to work on it, what the heck, I give you FTP access (the restriction is that I have to know you from previous discussions) to the Zope Tree/Products as well, so you can start making some progress there as well. I will not have much time until exams are over, so I do not want to kill the momentum I seem to have generated (seeing my personal Inbox). I welcome everyone to help with the coding and will do my best to support you. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU - Physics and Chemistry Student Web2k - Web Design/Development & Technical Project Management ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: Fishbowl?
Joachim Werner wrote: > I think that there ARE problems that can not be solved on a mailing list or > in the fishbowl. One of them is doing a good general design (which we MIGHT > need for some of the Zope 3.0 issues). I followed all the stuff about the > CMF and formerly PTK and knew that it was heading to a direction I didn't > want, but at the same time I felt that it would not help if I just > contributed to the mailing list. Maybe this was a personal problem of mine, > but I don't think so. I don't think so either. I think your paragraph above does a wonderful job of concisely summarizing the challenge. First, there shouldn't be Annointed Tools. We should strive to have good tools, and we should strive to use good tools, but the real goal is communication. If the current approach isn't hacking it, we need something else -- which could mean we learn from successful patterns in other projects. Second, when communication reveals an issue -- what happens? Let's say that every single person in the world of Zope agreed that the CMF was going in a wrong direction (just for the sake of argument, as the CMF has people that like it as well as dislike it). Would anything actually happen if consensus was reached, and who would be the ones to convert conclusion into code? Third, as Brian pointed out and you conclude with in the paragraph, frustrated people tune out. This causes the other side of the communication to get frustrated and stop communicating. Then things break down. It's important to recognize this is happening, put aside the frustration, and address the problems. > IMHO, there are two possible approaches to problems like that (major design > issues I mean): > > a) dictatorship, if the dictator is really good in his job (e.g. Jim Fulton > has done a great job with regard to the design of the ZODB ) > > b) meeting in real live (or at least in real time) > > Some of the core architecture of the KDE KParts component model was > developed on the KDE 2 conference AFAIK. I think we might have to do > sessions like that at the upcoming Zope/Python conferences ... That's a very good point. It's even a good point inside ZC. Getting ten people in a room for an extreme programming session has done wonders for our ideas on Zope3. Anybody want to fly to Virginia? :^) Yesterday morning I started hanging out on the #zope IRC channel. Already it has been illuminating. It also creates an atmosphere of understanding. I need to do this more often. --Paul ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Another open letter. :-)
After the discussion here I'm slowly starting to form a picture in my mind of how to "solve" the "problems". First some basic facts of life: - Zope corp needs to do what Zope corp thinks it can make money on. - "We" (that is the Zope community) need to get some features into the base of Zope because: a. It's not effective that we all solve the same problems independantly. b. Some features are hard to do as products. - It is imperative that there is a single point of control for Zope, ie no branching. This means Zope corp needs to control what goes into Zope, but the community needs to tell them what should go there, and the community has to help to put it in. To achieve this, we need better community support systems. That is, we need a proper community site, with discussion forums, a merged collector/proposal application with proper threaded discussions and applied workflow for proposal states. The projects that get started also need their protected areas on the site with discussion forums and their own CVS trees. In all, this would support a better inflow of comments from the community, it would make it easier for community members to see the responses to their input, and it would be easier to start projects with non ZC people involved in programming. Here are some things that I feel should be introduced into Zope: - Workflow support. (Because everybody needs it) - Versioning. (Because it's hard to do as a product) - Internationalization. (Because it's hard to do as a product) - Better user management. (Because everybody needs it) Also, Zope would benefit from the inclusion of several products that improve the products included in Zope. Many people have found some objects lacking in functionality, and added that functionality and put it up on Zope.org. Many of these improved products could easily replace the products that come with Zope today, thereby giving a better "wow" factor to Zope without much effort. I also feel there are things that could be removed. And now I'm gonna say bad things about parts of zope some people probably love, and they will hate me for this, but I'll have to live with that. This is my view only. I have on occasion been known to be completely wrong. :-) - Don't do any more work on ZClasses, and eventually drop it. To me they do not seem easier to work with than Python, they are messier and not as flexible. - I feel that CMF is a failure. It doesn't do what is promised, it's very hard to understand and many parts of it are simply designed so badly and incorrectly that they are practically useless. Drop CMF. Take the good parts and integrate them directly into the Zope base to make Zope a better platform form content management applications, and forget about the rest. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Fully Zope-based Mailman Version
Stephan Richter wrote: > > >1. Convert the HTML screens to Zope DTML and connect the functionality to > >Mailman. > > Okay, I just wrote a proof of concept by simulating the admin intro screen > and it works just fine. The most amount of work will come from the HTML > page translations into DTML. Can I suggest you use ZPT rather than DTML and make your life easier in the long run? cheers, Chris ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Fully Zope-based Mailman Version
>1. Convert the HTML screens to Zope DTML and connect the functionality to >Mailman. Okay, I just wrote a proof of concept by simulating the admin intro screen and it works just fine. The most amount of work will come from the HTML page translations into DTML. If you want to know how to setup and run Mailman for Zope, please send me an E-mail privately. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU - Physics and Chemistry Student Web2k - Web Design/Development & Technical Project Management ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
