On Mar 3, 2006, at 3:08 AM, Max M wrote:
Splitting up Zope to let people use seperate pieces of Zope aka Zed
is not a valid reason. Good software practise is a valid reason.
But catering for those few developers that wants to use just a few
pieces is probably not worth the effort.
Here's
[ Philipp von Weitershausen ]:
It's not about sacrificing the Zope-the-app-server brand. It's actually
about growing it in the sense that it becomes much clearer WHAT THE HELL
Zope actually is. Or can you explain what Zope is in one sentence?
But it all comes down to the depths (or
Stefane Fermigier wrote:
Strange how (most of) the Plone people seem to be so quick in willing to
sacrifice the Zope brand :(
In out world Zope doesn't have a brand. Plone has a it. Most of our
customers doesn't have a clue as to what Zope is.
As far as I can tell, Zope is a developers
On Tue, 2006-28-02 at 13:21 +0100, 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
Stefane Fermigier wrote:
Strange how (most of) the Plone people seem to be so quick in willing to
sacrifice the Zope brand :(
It's not about sacrificing the Zope-the-app-server brand. It's actually
about growing it in the sense that it becomes much clearer WHAT THE HELL
Zope actually is. Or can
Stefane Fermigier wrote:
Strange how (most of) the Plone people seem to be so quick in willing to
sacrifice the Zope brand :(
um, if you reread what i said, and what i think rocky is trying to say,
i'm in favor of _keeping_ the zope brand for the app server, which is
what zope has always
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.
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
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
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
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 code.
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
awful lot of us who are
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
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, I'd
Dario Lopez-Kästen wrote:
Max M said the following on 2006-02-27 17:26:
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.
read the full sentence that Jim wrote:
2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2
Jim Fulton wrote:
2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
+1 as already discussed at PyCON.
- Zope 5 will be the application server generally known as Zope. It
will be backward compatible (to the same degree that Zope 2
releases are currently backward compatible
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 we get a real forward
17 matches
Mail list logo
