On 2/28/06, Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gary Poster wrote:
> [snip]
> > On Feb 28, 2006, at 10:06 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> >
> >> I think focusing on one app server and a dedicated set of libraries
> >> would be a good alternative to two concurring app servers.
> >
>
Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>> I think focusing on one app server and a dedicated set of libraries
>>> would be a good alternative to two concurring app servers.
>>
>> ...if the single app server is based on acquisition,
>> __bobo_traverse__ and friends, objectValues and friends, ZCatalog,
>> and so
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:41:08 +0100
Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Could you please stop using a new name for Zope 3 or the
> zope package? You can explain this perfectly well using
> the existing, well established names.
I strongly disagree with this sentiment. To me the name
chan
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:33:05 -, Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I don't see how *saying* what Zope 5 will contain will make it *exist*
any time sooner. These sound like useful evolution proposals for Zope 2
and Zope 3 to me...
The current story of Zope 2, Five and Zope 3 ge
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 11:28, Paul Winkler wrote:
> Haven't we said forever that we want parts of zope 3 to be easily usable
> independently of each other? Is there anything controversial about
> making that more convenient?
My post is not about the merit of the change, but about neglecting
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 21:24 -0500, Stephan Richter wrote:
> On Monday 27 February 2006 16:56, Paul Winkler wrote:
> > At pycon we have just moved zope.interface
> > into a separate project (in preparation for eggification).
> > It's now a separate project at
> > http://svn.zope.org/zope.interface/t
Am 28.02.2006 um 17:28 schrieb Paul Winkler:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 09:24:49PM -0500, Stephan Richter wrote:
On Monday 27 February 2006 16:56, Paul Winkler wrote:
At pycon we have just moved zope.interface
into a separate project (in preparation for eggification).
It's now a separate project
On Feb 28, 2006, at 12:33 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Are you kidding?
No, I'm not kidding.
+1 to what Martijn said in this email (not quoting the whole thing to
save precious bandwith).
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zop
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 17:29 +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
I see Zope 5 being a combination of Zope 2 and Zope 3, keeping
the best of both.
I think we already have Zope 5, and it's called Zope 2.9.
Perhaps I'm wrong. If so, how does Zope 5 diffe
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
I see Zope 5 being a combination of Zope 2 and Zope 3, keeping
the best of both.
I think we already have Zope 5, and it's called Zope 2.9.
I'd rather say it's called Zope 2.15 or something :).
Seriously, we are developing applicat
Gary Poster wrote:
[snip]
On Feb 28, 2006, at 10:06 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
I think focusing on one app server and a dedicated set of libraries
would be a good alternative to two concurring app servers.
...if the single app server is based on acquisition, __bobo_traverse__
and
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 17:29 +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Jim Fulton wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > I see Zope 5 being a combination of Zope 2 and Zope 3, keeping
> > the best of both.
>
> I think we already have Zope 5, and it's called Zope 2.9.
>
> Perhaps I'm wrong. If so, how does Zope 5 differ f
On 2/28/06, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Zope 2 is more mature than Zope 3 in a lot of areas. WebDAV
> and process management are a couple of examples that occur to me
> off the top of my head.
Ah, and here I got an answer to the question I just posted. :)
Much of Zope2 maturity is th
Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> I see Zope 5 being a combination of Zope 2 and Zope 3, keeping
>> the best of both.
>
> I think we already have Zope 5, and it's called Zope 2.9.
I'd rather say it's called Zope 2.15 or something :).
Philipp
___
Zope3-dev ma
Tres Seaver wrote:
[snip]
In this vision, the Zope 3 project should stay where it is and push
things forward. That doesn't mean Five should be ignored by Zope 3
developers, but it should be compartmentalized in people's minds. Zope 3
does innovation, Five does integration, and then the big codeba
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 09:24:49PM -0500, Stephan Richter wrote:
> On Monday 27 February 2006 16:56, Paul Winkler wrote:
> > At pycon we have just moved zope.interface
> > into a separate project (in preparation for eggification).
> > It's now a separate project at
> > http://svn.zope.org/zope.inte
Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
I see Zope 5 being a combination of Zope 2 and Zope 3, keeping
the best of both.
I think we already have Zope 5, and it's called Zope 2.9.
Perhaps I'm wrong. If so, how does Zope 5 differ from Zope 2.9?
Regards,
Martijn
On 2/28/06, Tres Seaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the other major point is the "door #2" proposal takes pressure
> off of Zope3: under that regime, Zope3 does not need to grow all the
> features present in Zope2, which door #1 *does* imply.
I still would like to know wich these missin
On Feb 28, 2006, at 9:30 AM, Benji York wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
So, my proposal would be to tone down the vision to what we have
already: a co-evolving Zope 3 and Zope 2, with Zope 2 following
and Zope 3 leading (or Zope 2 driving Zope 3 forward, however you
want to see it). No rena
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 17:06 +0100, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> OK, some initial, fuzzy comments:
>
...
> You are thinking about things like TTW development and such?
Among other things.
Zope 2 is more mature than Zope 3 in a lot of areas. WebDAV
and process management are a couple of examples th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Max M wrote:
>
>> Jim Fulton wrote:
>>
>>> 2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
>>
>>
>>
>> Zope 2 is complicated! It has too many layers of everything.
>>
>> The reason for Zope 3 is to make it simpler for dev
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
1) Our current vision (AFAIK) is that Zope 3 will eventually
replace Zope 2
2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
As you probably know already, I am -1 on the second proposal, since it will
disallow us to finally get r
--On 28. Februar 2006 16:06:55 +0100 Philipp von Weitershausen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think focusing on one app server and a dedicated set of libraries
would be a good alternative to two concurring app servers.
+1
-aj
pgp3JPYef1z8N.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
I don't see how we need a new vision. This has been the vision
(evolution, not revolution) that I've been carrying out with Five for
the last few years and thanks to a lot of contributions by a large range
of developers, we've been
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 00:22, Encolpe Degoute wrote:
> Lennart Regebro a écrit :
> | OK, some initial, fuzzy comments:
> |
> | On 2/27/06, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |>2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
> |>
> |> - Zope 5 will be the application server generall
Stephan Richter wrote:
>>1) Our current vision (AFAIK) is that Zope 3 will eventually
>> replace Zope 2
>>
>>2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
>
>
> As you probably know already, I am -1 on the second proposal, since it will
> disallow us to finally get rid of the old Zope 2
Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>> I will also note that just because Zope 2 won't die, it doesn't mean we
>>> shouldn't clean it up. Eventually, Zope should mostly be reusing things
>>> from Zed.
>>
>>
>>
>> +sys.maxint
>>
>> I think this will be the way we get a real forward migration path for an
>> awfu
Martijn Faassen wrote:
So, my proposal would be to tone down the vision to what we have
already: a co-evolving Zope 3 and Zope 2, with Zope 2 following and Zope
3 leading (or Zope 2 driving Zope 3 forward, however you want to see
it). No renaming necessary. No change of course necessary. Zope 2
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 03:58, Shane Hathaway wrote:
> Unfortunately, this discussion is too fuzzy for me to understand exactly
> what's being proposed. How about something concrete: will the Zope 3 in
> vision #2 have a ZMI, and will typical ZODB objects have a __parent__
> and __name__? (Ei
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 07:22, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> I don't see how we need a new vision. This has been the vision
> (evolution, not revolution) that I've been carrying out with Five for
> the last few years and thanks to a lot of contributions by a large range
> of developers, we've been m
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
[snip]
I would vote for spelling out Zed (which would also be a little easier
to google but might create trademark problems). The namespace package
could either be 'z' or 'zed'.
Then again, I really should take Jim's side and stay out of
Hey,
I have another comment about Zope 5, sparked by something Jeff Shell wrote.
Currently we have a clear path to evolution. Zope 3 evolves at its pace,
and Zope 2 evolves mostly by catching up with Zope 3, replacing more and
more bits with Zope 3 bits, which often takes considerable ingenuit
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 12:31:33AM +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
I will also note that just because Zope 2 won't die, it doesn't mean we
shouldn't clean it up. Eventually, Zope should mostly be reusing things
from Zed.
+sys.maxint
I think this will be the way w
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
[snip]
I would vote for spelling out Zed (which would also be a little easier
to google but might create trademark problems). The namespace package
could either be 'z' or 'zed'.
Then again, I really should take Jim's side and stay out of naming
decisions.
Let's
Max M wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
Zope 2 is complicated! It has too many layers of everything.
The reason for Zope 3 is to make it simpler for developers.
Therefore I believe that any succesfull strategy would require Zope 3 to
be usable c
Jim Fulton wrote:
I'd like to get feedback on two possible visions for the future of
Zope 2 and Zope 3.
1) Our current vision (AFAIK) is that Zope 3 will eventually
replace Zope 2
[snip]
2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
[snip]
Thoughts?
My initial reaction is: d
Jeff Shell wrote:
Perhaps it's not the greatest name, but I've become enamored with *lib
names like 'formlib'.
'zopelib'
Hmmm. Not the prettiest thing. But it does say "Zope Library". If that
becomes the *core* of the mythical Zope 5, awesome.
This sounds familiar. :-)
http://www.zope.org/Wi
Lennart Regebro wrote:
I like the vision of Zope2 becoming a set of extra packages you
install for Zope3, to get backwards compatibility. Maybe this is the
same as what you call Zope 5, maybe not.
+1
--
Dmitry Vasiliev (dima at hlabs.spb.ru)
http://hlabs.spb.ru
Ursprüngliche Nachricht
am: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:57:46 -0500
von: Stephan Richter : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>I just want to be ensured that I do not have to deal with additional
overhead
>(i.e. learn Zope 2 again), but can develop Zope 3 applications as I like it.
Not new to Python but new to Zo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lennart Regebro a écrit :
| OK, some initial, fuzzy comments:
|
| On 2/27/06, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|>2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
|>
|> - Zope 5 will be the application server generally known as Zope. It
|>
40 matches
Mail list logo