-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 5, 2009, at 08:24 , Christian Theune wrote:
> As Dan pointed out, some of those documents are a bit more general
> than
> Zope Framework, but, then again, they're also more general than Zope
> 3.
> So even for that its better to have them
On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 20:50 +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Dan Korostelev wrote:
> [snip
> > Well, that docs are currently not necessarily about the "zope
> > framework" (as far as I understood what's "zope framework" now), but
> > more about general
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Baiju M wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> zope.deprecation is used in zope.configuration *only* to turn
>> off deprecation warning when accessing attribute of an object in
>> one place. But there is no
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Baiju M wrote:
> Hi,
>
>zope.deprecation is used in zope.configuration *only* to turn
> off deprecation warning when accessing attribute of an object in
> one place. But there is no test case or comment about when such
> a warning will occur.
>
Roger Ineichen wrote:
> Shane,
> Can you review and merge this changes into your
> zope.pipeline branch?
I'm going to put zope.pipeline on hold until the PyCon sprints. Jim and
I need to discuss it in person; hopefully then I can understand his
opposition and the group can decide on the best d
Hi,
zope.deprecation is used in zope.configuration *only* to turn
off deprecation warning when accessing attribute of an object in
one place. But there is no test case or comment about when such
a warning will occur.
I have pasted the relevant code here:
def resolve(self, dottedname):
Hi Martijn, Shane
I fixed some issues in zope.publisher and at the same
time I implemented the default skin pattern within
an adapter pattern.
The adapter getDefaultSkin in zope.publisher.browser.py
is registered in configure.zcml
The changes are compatible within the zope core but only if
zmc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> 4. Rework zope.hookable to use a pure-Python implementation via
>>descriptors, instead of the C extension. Make it a non-optional
>>dependency (but small and lightweight) of zope.component. If
>>*current* prof
Tres Seaver wrote:
[snip]
> It probably could be (in fact, I prototyped it there first). However,
> it turns out that zope.hookable has effectively *no* clients beyond
> zope.component, which meant that I could lose the 'install_requires'
> dependency altogether by moving the pure-Python bits to z
Hey,
Thanks for reposting. It still shows up in the same thread for me, but
I'll go with it. :)
> I have a "strawman" proposal, focused on stripping zope.component down
> as far as possible:
>
> 1. Merge my branch which drops the deferred import stuff.
>
> .. note:
>I'm about to do this me
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Korostelev wrote:
> 2009/3/5 Tres Seaver :
>> Log message for revision 97501:
>> Merge the 'tseaver-wo_zope_deferredimport' branch:
>
> Great! Thank you!
>
>> - Added a pure-Python 'hookable' implementation, for use when
>>'zope.hookable' i
Hi there,
Tres Seaver wrote:
[snip]
> Those files exist to allow for a use case we may have abandoned, which
> is allowing packages to be installed in such a way that a tool could
> help users enable / disable their configurations, without mutating
> something like 'site.zcml'. The folks who migh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
(reposted at Martijn's request in a new thread).
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Paul Everitt wrote:
> [snip]
>> Hopefully the Zope Framework proposal helps untangle this, and gets to a
>> point where you don't have to keep the Uberthing in yo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Baiju M wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Dan Korostelev wrote:
>>> 2009/3/2 Tres Seaver :
>> -
> I believe people still use the ZCML "slug" files like the above.
They certainly aren't related to 'zpkg'.
Hey Tres,
Could you repost this to a new thread as I think people aren't paying
attention to this thread very much anymore? I'd very much like to make
progress on actual cleanups now.
Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Paul Everitt wrote:
> [snip]
>> Hopefully the Zope Framework proposal helps untangle this, and gets to a
>> point where you don't have to keep the Uberthing in your head when doing
>> something small.
>
> It's
Hi there,
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Dan Korostelev wrote:
[snip
> Well, that docs are currently not necessarily about the "zope
> framework" (as far as I understood what's "zope framework" now), but
> more about general development guidelines applied to any package in
> zope svn (except the
2009/3/4 Martijn Faassen :
> Hi there,
>
> We have an area called 'zope3docs':
>
> http://svn.zope.org/zope3docs/
>
> which contains many documents that are actually more about the Zope
> Framework than the Zope 3 app server. In fact I suspect all of these
> documents are more about the framework t
Hi there,
This document contains the decisions made by the Zope Framework Steering
Group:
http://svn.zope.org/zopeframework/trunk/decisions.txt
This is the project area for the zopeframework steering group:
http://svn.zope.org/zopeframework/trunk
It is currently designated to contain document
Hi there,
We have an area called 'zope3docs':
http://svn.zope.org/zope3docs/
which contains many documents that are actually more about the Zope
Framework than the Zope 3 app server. In fact I suspect all of these
documents are more about the framework than anything else, so we should
move th
Dan Korostelev wrote:
> 2009/3/4 Martijn Faassen :
>> Dan Korostelev wrote:
>>> 2009/3/4 Tres Seaver :
>> Note that I'm not actually proposing that we merge this branch any time
>> soon: it is a bit of a straw man for the ongoing process conversation.
> Why not? It looks that it's just
Hey everybody,
This thread is now closed, thanks everybody for your contributions!
See my unilateral announcement about the formation of the Steering Group
and Zope Framework. It do its best to try to balance the concerns in
this thread.
Regards,
Martijn
_
Hi there,
The Zope Framework Steering Group needs your help. Could people get
together and help draw up a list of packages that should be in the Zope
Framework?
We should get everything in the Zope 3 KGS listing and start whittling
it down, by removing things that are obviously not part of the
Hi there,
Enough discussion. I'm taking a few next steps so we can make progress.
I'm going to arbitrarily assume we have enough of a consensus to move
forward. Next step is to Just Do It, as Gary said.
So, as of right now, we have the Zope Framework. We have a Zope
Framework Steering Group. T
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 18:27, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> If it's impossible for these people to agree when discussing on this
>> mailing list today, why would the suddenly agree on this mailing list
>> if we call them The Zope Framework Steering Group? I really don't
>> understand that.
>
> Two ans
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Real soon now, zope.app.container and zope.app.folder and
> zope.app.keyreference and zope.app.catalog are not going to be the
> business of the Zope Framework developers anymore. They contain ZMI
> stuff the Zope Framework developers do no
Chris McDonough wrote:
> I believe to get success here (measured as gaining new Python developer
> users),
> our path forward needs to be way, way, way more radical and needs to involve
> making hard choices that treat individual packages on their own merit rather
> than even considering their rol
Hi there,
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>
>
>> * A clear set of explicit, layered dependencies in software is generally
>> a good thing. We can start thinking about smaller pieces better. By
>> splitting up into individually packaged and released
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
> The steering group isn't intended to take a responsibility for the
> entirety of the Zope software. Zope 2, Grok and the Zope 3 app server
> (which would be a distinct entity) would manage themselves and the Zope
> Framework steerin
2009/3/4 Martijn Faassen :
> Dan Korostelev wrote:
>> 2009/3/4 Tres Seaver :
> Note that I'm not actually proposing that we merge this branch any time
> soon: it is a bit of a straw man for the ongoing process conversation.
Why not? It looks that it's just a dependency cleanup, so it
Dan Korostelev wrote:
> 2009/3/4 Tres Seaver :
Note that I'm not actually proposing that we merge this branch any time
soon: it is a bit of a straw man for the ongoing process conversation.
>>> Why not? It looks that it's just a dependency cleanup, so it can be
>>> merged (and released!)
Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 18:03, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> I'd like there to be someone who can make this decision and I'd like
>> this someone to usually make *positive* decisions that work towards
>> resolving the underlying issue, while coordinating with everybody that
>>
Baiju M wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Dan Korostelev wrote:
>> 2009/3/2 Tres Seaver :
> -
I believe people still use the ZCML "slug" files like the above.
>>> They certainly aren't related to 'zpkg'. The intent of the slugs was to
>>> allow for something like 'sites-available'
Hi there,
I think all this makes sense, so +1 from me.
Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://mail.zope.org/mailman
Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 17:48, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Note that the Zope Steering group is not about
>> packages that are not in the framework, so if lovely.remotetask isn't
>> there, it can say little.
>
> Which is exactly my point. It surely isn't at the moment, and I
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> * A clear set of explicit, layered dependencies in software is generally
> a good thing. We can start thinking about smaller pieces better. By
> splitting up into individually packaged and released bits, we are forced
> to think about these things more.
(I'm running o
Andreas Jung wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 04.03.2009 17:26 Uhr, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> Andreas Jung wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> This would definitely make sense to me. With respect to a steering
>>> committee: I am also a bit skeptical about such a co
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04.03.2009 18:18 Uhr, Tres Seaver wrote:
> Tres Seaver wrote:
>> Hanno Schlichting wrote:
>>> Tres Seaver wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> I looked at this, but guessing or reliably getting to the zopepy script
> wasn't possible. So I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tres Seaver wrote:
> Hanno Schlichting wrote:
>> Tres Seaver wrote:
>>> Hanno Schlichting wrote:
I looked at this, but guessing or reliably getting to the zopepy script
wasn't possible. So I added an explicit option to the script instead and
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 18:03, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> I'd like there to be someone who can make this decision and I'd like
> this someone to usually make *positive* decisions that work towards
> resolving the underlying issue, while coordinating with everybody that
> is impacted by this decision.
Hi there,
Paul Everitt wrote:
[snip]
> Hopefully the Zope Framework proposal helps untangle this, and gets to a
> point where you don't have to keep the Uberthing in your head when doing
> something small.
It's not small, as it has an impact on a lot of things that build on
zope.component. Cha
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 17:48, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Note that the Zope Steering group is not about
> packages that are not in the framework, so if lovely.remotetask isn't
> there, it can say little.
Which is exactly my point. It surely isn't at the moment, and I don't
see that it should be any
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04.03.2009 17:26 Uhr, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Andreas Jung wrote:
> [snip]
>> This would definitely make sense to me. With respect to a steering
>> committee: I am also a bit skeptical about such a committee. I think
>> that the upco
Baiju M wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
> [snip]
>> - I think, Zope 3 is not only about some seperate packages, but about a
>> complete "programming experience". Thus there needs to be some integrating
>> force, that draws together all these packages, writes som
Hi there,
Lennart Regebro wrote:
[snip]
> And it is in any case in no way even remotely connected to the group
> Martijn proposed and has been discussed in this thread.
Of course it is connected. The Zope Framework needs leadership that can
help:
- bless efforts by individuals and subgroups tha
Chris McDonough wrote:
[snip]
> This just seems like a blindingly obvious antigoal to actually breaking apart
> the software into more discrete bits using eggs. Why not just stick with a
> huge
> tarball release or one single egg if it all has to be versioned through time
> to
> 99% of its consu
On Wednesday 04 March 2009, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> I don't agree the Zope Foundation board should directly steer
> development of the Zope software.
I totally agree.
Regards,
Stephan
--
Stephan Richter
Web Software Design, Development and Training
Google me. "Zope Stephan Richter"
Hi there,
Andreas Jung wrote:
[snip]
> This would definitely make sense to me. With respect to a steering
> committee: I am also a bit skeptical about such a committee. I think
> that the upcoming ZF board will have a good representation of each Zope
> project on the board in order to address thin
Hey there,
Chris McDonough wrote:
> 1) I'm not in favor of a single steering group for the *entirety* of all Zope
> software. We've tried a similar thing in the past (via the foundation
> structure); it didn't work and I'm not sure how we'd expect things to turn out
> any differently this time
Hi there,
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
[snip]
> You can try to bake more leadership of the overall Zope community into
> this, but I think this is a fruitless fight right now. Reduce the scope,
> try make some things better and don't step on other peoples feet if you
> don't need to. For example don't
Gary Poster wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2009, at 12:31 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>
>> Hey Gary,
>>
>> [panarchist approach where we have people starting groups that could
>> compete for attention]
>
> [Had to look up panarchist, but yes, essentially.]
I shouldn't have used that word, I actually didn't r
Dieter Maurer wrote:
> Zvezdan Petkovic wrote at 2009-2-19 13:06 -0500:
>> I can adapt to any style
>> and believe that the fine grain details should not be dogmatically
>> enforced but rather allow for variations in such subjective preferences.
>
> +1
+ sys.maxint
Chris
--
Simplistix - Co
Tres Seaver wrote:
> That is why this is religious: I find "from imports" make code *more*
> readable: the dotted prefixes are "noise" rather than "signal" to my eyes.
+1
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk
_
On 3/4/09 9:47 AM, Roger Ineichen wrote:
> Hi Paul
>
>> Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] the Zope Framework project
>>
>> On 3/4/09 8:16 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Chameleon provided something that made it work for those
>> users, while allowing it to not be burdened by those needs.
>> Everybod
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Korostelev wrote:
> 2009/3/4 Tres Seaver :
>> - - Due to the 'test' extra, buildout pulls in a bunch of extra
>> dependencies, which I would like to zap (ZODB? really? just to
>> verify that the persistent registry survives 'dumps' and 'loads'?
Hi Paul
> Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] the Zope Framework project
>
> On 3/4/09 8:16 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
[...]
> Chameleon provided something that made it work for those
> users, while allowing it to not be burdened by those needs.
> Everybody wins.
> Hopefully such solutions will be the no
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 3:04 AM, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
> Am Mittwoch 04 März 2009 07:52:09 schrieb Chris McDonough:
>> Tather than reply in kind here, let me summarize: I'm glad we agree more
>> than we disagree, and I apologize if I've attributed to you beliefs that
>> you don't have. It's
On 3/4/09 8:16 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Paul Everitt wrote:
>
>> When I read Martin's post, I had a similar reaction. Namely, that the
>> convenience of the Uberthing (Plone in this case) will always trump the
>> desire of packages trying to survive on their own for new audiences. At
>> the tim
Tres Seaver wrote:
> Tres Seaver wrote:
>> Log message for revision 97465:
>> Branch removing zope.deferred.
>
> This checkin is the branch I had in mind when sketching out a
> non-CPython-only zope.component story today.
Wonderful, +1
I think the change makes sense from the perspective of zop
Paul Everitt wrote:
> When I read Martin's post, I had a similar reaction. Namely, that the
> convenience of the Uberthing (Plone in this case) will always trump the
> desire of packages trying to survive on their own for new audiences. At
> the time of the configuration scolding, I remember
On 3/4/09 1:07 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> Chris McDonough wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, the "you" above in "you scolded" was Martin Aspeli, not Faassen.
>> Note that the "scolding" had something to do with you breaking Plone
>> trunk due to a transitive change in Chameleon, and the
On Mar 4, 2009, at 2:20 AM, Thomas Lotze wrote:
> Gary Poster schrieb:
>
>>> Index: src/zc/dict/configure.zcml
>>> ===
>>> --- src/zc/dict/configure.zcml (.../trunk) (revision 0)
>>> +++ src/zc/dict/configure.zcml (...
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Tue Mar 3 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Wed Mar 4 12:00:00 2009 UTC.
There were 6 messages: 6 from Zope Tests.
Tests passed OK
---
Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux
From: Zope Tests
Date: Tue Mar 3 20:21:23 EST 2009
URL: http://
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:56, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
> Am Mittwoch 04 März 2009 10:25:19 schrieb Lennart Regebro:
>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:04, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
>> > What I don't see in your proposal is, how these subset-groups would be
>> > coordinated, which leads to the follow
Am Mittwoch 04 März 2009 10:25:19 schrieb Lennart Regebro:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:04, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
> > What I don't see in your proposal is, how these subset-groups would be
> > coordinated, which leads to the following:
> > - How does some foreigner know, if a package is active
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
[snip]
> - I think, Zope 3 is not only about some seperate packages, but about a
> complete "programming experience". Thus there needs to be some integrating
> force, that draws together all these packages, writes some documentation /
> tu
Am Mittwoch 04 März 2009 08:16:26 schrieb Lennart Regebro:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 07:52, Chris McDonough wrote:
> > Tather than reply in kind here, let me summarize: I'm glad we agree more
> > than we disagree, and I apologize if I've attributed to you beliefs that
> > you don't have. It's hea
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:04, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
> What I don't see in your proposal is, how these subset-groups would be
> coordinated, which leads to the following:
>
> - How would these groups be formed? If there's nobody who encourages people to
> do so,
They will be formed by people
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 09:21, Chris McDonough wrote:
> To the extent we can discourage the formation of the
> one-big-group-to-rule-them-all by encouraging the formation of smaller
> groups, I
> think it's a good idea. But in reality, I think nothing needs to be done:
> group-forming will always
Am Mittwoch 04 März 2009 07:52:09 schrieb Chris McDonough:
> Tather than reply in kind here, let me summarize: I'm glad we agree more
> than we disagree, and I apologize if I've attributed to you beliefs that
> you don't have. It's heartening to hear that you're in favor of most of
> the things I
Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 07:52, Chris McDonough wrote:
>> Tather than reply in kind here, let me summarize: I'm glad we agree more
>> than
>> we disagree, and I apologize if I've attributed to you beliefs that you don't
>> have. It's heartening to hear that you're in favo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04.03.2009 8:50 Uhr, Chris McDonough wrote:
> Andreas Jung wrote:
>
>>> 2) I'm also not in favor of a giant lockstep set of software versions shared
>>> between notional releases Zope 3.5, Grok, and Zope 2.12. I can only see
>>> this as
>>> conti
72 matches
Mail list logo
