Re: [Zope-dev] direction

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/07/2011 03:24 AM, Shane Hathaway wrote: > On 07/06/2011 10:59 AM, Hanno Schlichting wrote: >> The ZMI is a highly insecure, completely outdated and >> user-unfriendly interface. > > As I read this, I got an idea for a possible way forward. I ha

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 12:11:40 +0100 Martin Aspeli wrote: > Hi, > Hello, > > I think it would be very sad if that happened, especially since there > evidently demand from other projects. > > What I think is clear is that to evolve Zope 2, we need to shed some > baggage and make some deeper ch

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 15:07:35 +0200 Jens Vagelpohl wrote: Hello, > > I totally agree. Now would be a good moment to make it all a little > better by dropping the name "Zope 2" in favor of "Zope". And I > sincerely hope that "zope2.zope.org" will go away and its content end > up on the new www

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 12:10:35 +0100 Laurence Rowe wrote: Hello, > > I agree with Jonas that any idea of giving a package named Zope2 a > version number that is not 2.x is only going to lead to more > confusion. For Zope2 we're used the x in 2.x.y being the major version > now anyway, the next

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

On 07/06/2011 10:59 AM, Hanno Schlichting wrote: > The ZMI is a highly insecure, completely outdated and user-unfriendly > interface. As I read this, I got an idea for a possible way forward. I haven't been reading zope-dev much lately, so forgive me if something like this has been mentioned a

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

Hi. On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Leonardo Rochael Almeida wrote: > I guess this is the biggest point of contention. Why does the ZMI have > to go? Although both Plone and ERP5 strive to gradually replace ZMI > based configuration with "native" interfaces (native to Plone/ERP5), > isn't there v

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

On 6 July 2011 15:27, Sascha Welter wrote: > I'm sorry, I don't really understand the current line of discussion yet. > > I see a lot of discussion which part is going to be cut out and dropped, > or replaced. I haven't yet understood what's the end target for the > project. > > So, are you guys e

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

I'm sorry, I don't really understand the current line of discussion yet. I see a lot of discussion which part is going to be cut out and dropped, or replaced. I haven't yet understood what's the end target for the project. So, are you guys expecting to get Zope into a shape where it will attract

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

On 7/6/11 13:41 , Martijn Faassen wrote: > Concerning not marketing Zope 2, heh, Zope and marketing strategies? I > thought we were going to call "Zope 2", "Zope" now, so people will > obviously be curious about this Zope thing... Never make any assumptions > about a coherent Zope marketing strateg

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

On 07/05/2011 12:22 PM, Jonas Meurer wrote: >> Since we don't market Zope2 anymore, I think there's actually much >> less confusion from this than we'd fear. It's just an internal version >> number used in some buildout files, not something that has any >> particular meaning. > > I don't like eith

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

On 5 July 2011 20:21, Leonardo Rochael Almeida wrote: > Hi Hanno, > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:18, Hanno Schlichting wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Martin Aspeli >> wrote: >>> I would've thought it would also be possible for those who rely on this to >>> maintain the relevant eggs

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

Hi Hanno, On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:18, Hanno Schlichting wrote: > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Martin Aspeli > wrote: >> I would've thought it would also be possible for those who rely on this to >> maintain the relevant eggs as optional installations against Zope 2.x, no? > > The ZMI is n

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

On 7/5/11 3:22 AM, zope-dev-requ...@zope.org wrote: Hanno writes: > Someone might try, but I think it's not a wise decision to spent any > resources that way. I am trying. I am trying to create a Zope 2 like TTW development environment on top of BlueBream. I have a small email list of people

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

Martijn Pieters wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 14:41, Hanno Schlichting wrote: Ok, seems 4.0 is the more popular choice. I don't agree. Let's go with Fibonacci and call the next release Zope 8, as the logical extension of the series 1, 2, 3, and 5! How about ZopeNG? Waiting-for-some-beat

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 14:41, Hanno Schlichting wrote: > Ok, seems 4.0 is the more popular choice. I don't agree. Let's go with Fibonacci and call the next release Zope 8, as the logical extension of the series 1, 2, 3, and 5! :-P -- Martijn Pieters

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Jens Vagelpohl wrote: > "zopefour" as a domain isn't very helpful. It would add yet another > "top-level" name to the existing list (Zope 2, Zope 3). That was an April fools joke I was referring to. I didn't mean to suggest to actually use that in any way ;-) Hann

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

Am 05.07.2011, 14:44 Uhr, schrieb Jens Vagelpohl : > "zopefour" as a domain isn't very helpful. It would add yet another > "top-level" name to the existing list (Zope 2, Zope 3). > In the best of all possible worlds the package now known as "Zope2" > would simply be "Zope", and its website is at w

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

On 7/5/11 14:41 , Hanno Schlichting wrote: > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Jens Vagelpohl wrote: >> On 7/5/11 11:56 , Martin Aspeli wrote: >>> On 5 July 2011 10:31, Hanno Schlichtingwrote: >>> I'd actually favour calling it Zope2 4.0 just to avoid any mix-up with the >>> defunct Zope 3, alt

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Jens Vagelpohl wrote: > On 7/5/11 11:56 , Martin Aspeli wrote: >> On 5 July 2011 10:31, Hanno Schlichting  wrote: >> I'd actually favour calling it Zope2 4.0 just to avoid any mix-up with the >> defunct Zope 3, although I don't think there are any particularly good

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

Hi, On 5 July 2011 11:26, Tobias Helfrich wrote: > > Hi Hanno > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Tobias Helfrich > > wrote: > > > OK, so you do think that we might use Zope 2.12 for a quite > > long time > > > without thinking about anymore updates? Will there be any security > > > updates

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

On 5 July 2011 11:22, Jonas Meurer wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Am 05.07.2011 12:04, schrieb Hanno Schlichting: >> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Martin Aspeli >> wrote: >>> On 5 July 2011 10:31, Hanno Schlichting wrote: So we just got ourselves a Zope2 ve

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am 05.07.2011 11:30, schrieb Martin Aspeli: > > > On 5 July 2011 10:18, Hanno Schlichting > wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Martin Aspeli > mailto:optilude%2bli...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > I would've

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

Hi Hanno > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Tobias Helfrich > wrote: > > OK, so you do think that we might use Zope 2.12 for a quite > long time > > without thinking about anymore updates? Will there be any security > > updates for Zope 2.12 in the future? > > You want to use Zope 2.13. 2.

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am 05.07.2011 12:04, schrieb Hanno Schlichting: > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Martin Aspeli > wrote: >> On 5 July 2011 10:31, Hanno Schlichting wrote: >>> So we just got ourselves a Zope2 version 3.0. And no, naming it 4.0 or >>> 5.0 or anythin

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

On 5 July 2011 11:10, Jens Vagelpohl wrote: > On 7/5/11 11:56 , Martin Aspeli wrote: > > On 5 July 2011 10:31, Hanno Schlichting wrote: > >> So we just got ourselves a Zope2 version 3.0. And no, naming it 4.0 or > >> 5.0 or anything else doesn't make it any better at all. So 3.0 is the > >> most

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

On 7/5/11 11:56 , Martin Aspeli wrote: > On 5 July 2011 10:31, Hanno Schlichting wrote: >> So we just got ourselves a Zope2 version 3.0. And no, naming it 4.0 or >> 5.0 or anything else doesn't make it any better at all. So 3.0 is the >> most sensible one :) > > > Boy, that's going to be confusing

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote: > On 5 July 2011 10:31, Hanno Schlichting wrote: >> So we just got ourselves a Zope2 version 3.0. And no, naming it 4.0 or >> 5.0 or anything else doesn't make it any better at all. So 3.0 is the >> most sensible one :) > > Boy, that's going t

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

On 5 July 2011 10:31, Hanno Schlichting wrote: > On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:19 PM, yuppie wrote: > > Long-term maintenance for Zope 2.13 would give these > > projects/deployments at least a few more years. > > Yes. I'm willing to cut releases for it for quite a while. I just > expect to see activ

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:19 PM, yuppie wrote: > Long-term maintenance for Zope 2.13 would give these > projects/deployments at least a few more years. Yes. I'm willing to cut releases for it for quite a while. I just expect to see active maintenance from the Plone community to stop in a year or

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

On 5 July 2011 10:18, Hanno Schlichting wrote: > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Martin Aspeli > wrote: > > I would've thought it would also be possible for those who rely on this > to > > maintain the relevant eggs as optional installations against Zope 2.x, > no? > > The ZMI is not a package

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote: > I would've thought it would also be possible for those who rely on this to > maintain the relevant eggs as optional installations against Zope 2.x, no? The ZMI is not a package - we don't have a split into zope and zope.app in Zope2. Once th

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Leonardo Rochael Almeida wrote: > As for the rest, most of the things that have been removed from core > were done in such a way that they can still be used with Zope2, so > ERP5 can happily keep using them. If things can keep evolving with > this care we should be

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

On 5 July 2011 09:42, Hanno Schlichting wrote: > What you are describing is exactly what I meant by old legacy Zope2 > applications. > > You should be able to use this style of development with Zope 2.13. > But you won't be able to upgrade to newer versions of Zope 2 anymore > and expect your cod

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Sylvain Viollon wrote: >  ... and I still do use the VirtualHostMonster >  (you can trash all the other things). > >  I agree that its code might not been the best in the world, but it >  works for the moment and does what it says (I would love to see >  shiftNameT

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Tobias Helfrich wrote: > OK, so you do think that we might use Zope 2.12 for a quite long time > without thinking about anymore updates? Will there be any security > updates for Zope 2.12 in the future? You want to use Zope 2.13. 2.12 is at the end of its active m

[Zope-dev] direction

Hi, this is my first posting on the list, so please be kind if i make some mistakes ;-) > On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 1:03 AM, Leonardo Rochael Almeida > wrote: > > I noticed you've been very busy doing clean-up on the Zope2 > code base > > in the last few hours. As someone who has recently spent

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

On 2011-7-4 11:59, Marius Gedminas wrote: > On Sun, Jul 03, 2011 at 06:10:48PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: >> On 2011-7-3 17:48, Martin Aspeli wrote: >>> FWIW, we have a high-performance, high-load application in production on >>> Plone 4 with collective.beaker relying heavily on sessions, and I

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

On 4 July 2011 13:04, Leonardo Rochael Almeida wrote: > On the other hand, if we could get the ZTK version of this working > (the one that used /++vh-host and /++vh-root url segments) I think it > should be ok, and we could get rid of VHM completely. The BlueBream URL syntax is no better than the

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

Something of a meta-comment on this thread: It sounds like people are broadly in agreement on the direction, but not communicating enough about what's actually going on. I think it would be useful to keep some kind of roadmap wiki on zope.org, or at least post to the list periodically saying, "th

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

Hi Hanno, >From the point of view of the ERP5 codebase, this direction for Zope2 should be mostly ok, save for a few comments below: On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 03:41, Hanno Schlichting wrote: > On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 1:03 AM, Leonardo Rochael Almeida > wrote: >> [...] > > I think moving to Zope 2.1

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

Hi! Hanno Schlichting wrote: > I think moving to Zope 2.12 and 2.13 does have some value for Nexedi > or other large existing codebases, as you get support for current > versions of the ZODB, Zope Toolkit packages and support for Python 2.7 > with Zope 2.13. Since Python 2.7 is a long-term mainte

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

On Sun, Jul 03, 2011 at 06:10:48PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > On 2011-7-3 17:48, Martin Aspeli wrote: > > FWIW, we have a high-performance, high-load application in production on > > Plone 4 with collective.beaker relying heavily on sessions, and I'm not > > aware of any problems with it. We

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 01:09:17 -0400 Chris McDonough wrote: > On Sun, 2011-07-03 at 03:41 +0200, Hanno Schlichting wrote: > Hello, > > - Continue to remove functionality tailored for TTW development, > > like SiteRoot, AccessRules, HelpSys and step-by-step most of the ZMI > > - Document and us

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

On Sun, 2011-07-03 at 17:44 +0200, Hanno Schlichting wrote: > > I don't have any skin in this game, but FTR, Mike Bayer isn't feeling > > all that confident about Beaker's sessioning component (or so he has > > told me). Beaker was originally made as a caching component, and had > > sessioning jam

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

On 2011-7-3 17:48, Martin Aspeli wrote: > FWIW, we have a high-performance, high-load application in production on > Plone 4 with collective.beaker relying heavily on sessions, and I'm not > aware of any problems with it. We use the memcached backend across two > physical servers and a large number

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

On 3 July 2011 16:44, Hanno Schlichting wrote: > On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Chris McDonough wrote: > > Zope still needs to the virtual host monster (or something like it) even > > with the WSGI publisher; there's nothing equivalent in the WSGI world > > (unless you could repoze.vhm, which i

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Chris McDonough wrote: > Zope still needs to the virtual host monster (or something like it) even > with the WSGI publisher; there's nothing equivalent in the WSGI world > (unless you could repoze.vhm, which is essentially just the virtual host > monster, and probab

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

On Sun, 2011-07-03 at 03:41 +0200, Hanno Schlichting wrote: > - Continue to remove functionality tailored for TTW development, like > SiteRoot, AccessRules, HelpSys and step-by-step most of the ZMI > - Document and use the WSGI publisher and remove obsoleted > functionality like the virtual host m

Re: [Zope-dev] direction

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 1:03 AM, Leonardo Rochael Almeida wrote: > I noticed you've been very busy doing clean-up on the Zope2 code base > in the last few hours. As someone who has recently spent a lot of time > porting forward a large and mission-critical code base, ERP5, from > Zope 2.8 to Zope 2

[Zope-dev] direction

Hi Hanno, First of all, thank you very much for all you hard work, specially with the security issues. I noticed you've been very busy doing clean-up on the Zope2 code base in the last few hours. As someone who has recently spent a lot of time porting forward a large and mission-critical code bas