Re: [Zope-dev] dispatching zope.org's roles as a download source...
Lennart Regebro wrote: On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 10:14, Chris Withers ch...@simplistix.co.uk wrote: PyPI will work in exactly the same way as zope.org for non-eggified products: manual download. What I *would* worry about is non-egg distributions on PyPI causing problems for setuptools and its ilk... Wouldn't easy_install/buildout/etc just fail in those cases? Typically with a no setup.py found or something? I don't know, have you tried it? If that were the case, then I'd be +1 on killing the products part of (new|www|old).zope.org... Chris ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] setting missing minimum version in setup.py
Previously Chris Withers wrote: Wichert Akkerman wrote: What we do is: collect the tarballs, serve the resulting directory. I have not seen a need to run a script. How do you collect the tarballs? buildout download cache How do you serve the resulting directory? standard apache directory listing: http://dist.plone.org/release/version number Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.netIt is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Zope Tests: 7 OK, 1 Failed
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Tue Apr 7 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Wed Apr 8 12:00:00 2009 UTC. There were 8 messages: 8 from Zope Tests. Test failures - Subject: FAILED (errors=1) : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.1 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Apr 7 20:58:56 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011418.html Tests passed OK --- Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Apr 7 20:44:48 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011411.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Apr 7 20:46:50 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011412.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Apr 7 20:48:51 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011413.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Apr 7 20:50:51 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011414.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.6.1 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Apr 7 20:52:53 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011415.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Apr 7 20:54:53 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011416.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Apr 7 20:56:54 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011417.html ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] setting missing minimum version in setup.py
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris Withers wrote: Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Chris Withers wrote: Tres Seaver wrote: KGS the concept is very easy to implement; you just make available on some URL a buildout versions.cfg, or you run your own package index. OK, the former I can see happening on an end-user project, the latter is just too much work. Not really. Collect the tarballs, run a script, configure Apache to serve that diretory. Hmm, too much... but is it needed? Can you not point index at just a local folder on disk? I'm sure the Plone folks did something like this, maybe Hanno can chime in? What we do is: collect the tarballs, serve the resulting directory. I have not seen a need to run a script. How do you collect the tarballs? I dig them out of wherever I told whatver tool (buildout, compoze fetch, etc) to put them. How do you serve the resulting directory? See above. Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tsea...@palladion.com Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJ3JKI+gerLs4ltQ4RAtZ8AJoCjuoGAdIeHBd+A/16jms+U+ItGgCdEA6d MAm43IFFskpvj8sANIPGvwA= =P5rk -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 4.0, maybe not such a bad idea...
Chris Withers wrote: Gary Poster wrote: Within the constraints above, then, in line with your original proposal, I think we'd be fine with Zope Framework, and Zope 2. We certainly don't need Zope-3-the-tarball, if that's what you meant. Zope Framework (and maybe even ZF4) seems to have general agreement. Zope 2 can't stay as is, because people stick in in the chain of: Zope 1, Zope 2, Zope 3, Zope Framework 4 ...so there will be confusion. This isn't a chain. Zope Framework is not Zope the app server. It's a collection of libraries used by Zope 2 and Zope 3. 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] naming Zope
Hi there, There was some discussion recently on how to name Zope in the future. Here are my thoughts and suggestions. First of all some principles I tend to follow surrounding names. * I prefer not introducing too many new names at the same time. A renaming takes a while to percolate through the community and people to gain full understanding of it. * I prefer naming something that already exists (or renaming something) as opposed to naming something that doesn't really exist yet. A name is a handle on something that we can then use to talk about it and reason about it. * Naming discussions tend to lead to endless bikeshed discussion. Naming stuff is easy so everybody has an opinion, including myself. It's not very productive. We don't have clear community mechanisms to make decisions either (the Zope Framework Steering Group isn't it; it only cares about the Zope Framework. Perhaps the Foundation can be it, but it can only approve initiatives from the community in this area, I think. In this context I'll mention the new name Zope Framework that was recently introduced and is probably not yet fully understood by everybody. The Zope Framework is a collection of libraries. It's shared by at least the following web frameworks/app servers: Zope 2 app server, Zope 3 app server, Grok. Other systems such as bfg use a much smaller subset of these libraries. I see this as following the principles above: * it's only introducing a single new name. That's why it at least gets some acceptance now. * it's naming something that we were really already talking about. Unfortunately we conflated it with Zope 3, the thing you start that has a UI and so on, which retarded the development of both Zope 3 and the Zope Framework itself. It's good we have a handle on it now as a separate entity. This Zope Framework name and concept is just now percolating through the community. Zope Framework is *not* the renamed Zope 3, even though it's entirely based on what we used to call Zope 3. Zope 3 continues to exist, as long as there are people who are interested in creating an installation tool for it and care about its UI. Zope Framework is a *separate* entity. Zope 2 and Zope 3 do have confusing names. I prefer to tweak the meaning of Zope to be a project identifier instead of identifying software directly: Zope is all of the stuff developed by the Zope project. We therefore have the Zope Object Database, we have the zope component architecture, the zope interface package. This doesn't work for Zope 2 and Zope 3. It works for Grok by the way: I've been saying Zope Grok sometimes. With Zope 2 and Zope 3, we have version numbers that are at the same time identifiers of a piece of software itself; they're not really version numbers at all. That's why I have been using terms like Zope 2 App Server and Zope 3 App Server, but that isn't very satisfactory either. The 2 and the 3 still imply some kind of evolutionary progression that isn't quite what we are doing. In order to make Zope 2 and Zope 3 fit the pattern, it'd be nice if they had names that fit the Zope is a project, not software pattern. We could rename Zope 2 to Zope Classic, as was suggested. I think we should also rename Zope 3 to something else (that doesn't imply it's the modern future, as there are other alternatives at least as modern around that are more recently developed - we want to get out of that bind). I think renaming Zope 2 to Zope Classic will be easy. If the Zope 2 developers are okay with this, let's go right ahead. Not much discussion needed. Zope 2.11 becomes Zope Classic 11. It's a huge version number, but Zope Classic is over a decade old anyway. Nobody's going to mind. It looks impressive and it should be impressive; Zope Classic has been maintained for a long time by the community. I think it's going to be harder for Zope 3, as the Zope 3 community: those people who care about Zope 3 as a piece of software that can be installed, hasn't fully formed yet. There's a tool called zopeproject which is quite misnamed in the light of the above discussion. While I sometimes do use that piece of software, I'm far more interested in the Zope Framework, myself. Anyway, I'm rather reluctant to post this as I fear this will be a pile-on bikeshed discussion. I'd suggest that anyone interested in naming Zope 3 something else should keep quiet for the time being. Go and form a Zope 3 interest group first, don't talk about naming too much yet in that either, and come back to this topic later. Let's talk about Zope Classic and see whether renaming Zope 2 to that is a step we can realistically take in the near future. Who is in favor of that? 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 -
Re: [Zope-dev] naming Zope
Previously Martijn Faassen wrote: I think renaming Zope 2 to Zope Classic will be easy. If the Zope 2 developers are okay with this, let's go right ahead. Not much discussion needed. Zope 2.11 becomes Zope Classic 11. It's a huge version number, but Zope Classic is over a decade old anyway. Nobody's going to mind. It looks impressive and it should be impressive; Zope Classic has been maintained for a long time by the community. -1 The term `classic' is associated with things like old, ancient and obsolete to me and immediately makes me want to figure out what the new thing is. I do not think that is desired here: Zope 2 is just as hip and modern as Zope 3 and deserves just as much attention. Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.netIt is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] naming Zope
Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Martijn Faassen wrote: I think renaming Zope 2 to Zope Classic will be easy. If the Zope 2 developers are okay with this, let's go right ahead. Not much discussion needed. Zope 2.11 becomes Zope Classic 11. It's a huge version number, but Zope Classic is over a decade old anyway. Nobody's going to mind. It looks impressive and it should be impressive; Zope Classic has been maintained for a long time by the community. -1 The term `classic' is associated with things like old, ancient and obsolete to me and immediately makes me want to figure out what the new thing is. +1 to renaming Zope2 to classic for exactly these reasons ;) Hanno ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 4.0, maybe not such a bad idea...
Martijn Faassen wrote: Chris Withers wrote: Gary Poster wrote: Within the constraints above, then, in line with your original proposal, I think we'd be fine with Zope Framework, and Zope 2. We certainly don't need Zope-3-the-tarball, if that's what you meant. Zope Framework (and maybe even ZF4) seems to have general agreement. Zope 2 can't stay as is, because people stick in in the chain of: Zope 1, Zope 2, Zope 3, Zope Framework 4 ...so there will be confusion. This isn't a chain. *we* know that, but any sane human being wondering past won't. Zope Framework is not Zope the app server. It's a collection of libraries used by Zope 2 and Zope 3. See comment above ;-) Everyone seems in agreement that Zope Framework is fine, and 4.0 would be a good idea as a version number to make that official and clear. I'd like to see a list of possible names for Zope 2 and Zope 3 collected (I'm happy to do this) and put to a vote of the foundation membership *soon* and then we can get on with actually using the new names once you (as currently leader of the Zope world ;-) ) have made an announcement. cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] naming Zope
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08.04.2009 15:31 Uhr, Martijn Faassen wrote: Let's talk about Zope Classic and see whether renaming Zope 2 to that is a step we can realistically take in the near future. Who is in favor of that? - -100 Renaming Zope 2 to Zope anything does not solve any particular problem and will only lead to confusion. Andreas -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAknctlAACgkQCJIWIbr9KYwiqACfTfd2XIhYBgQkEqKbQQOYuzgu cisAoNZR/WWJ+qW1wq/Q51QcJaqFvTpl =Whdm -END PGP SIGNATURE- begin:vcard fn:Andreas Jung n:Jung;Andreas org:ZOPYX Ltd. Co. KG adr;quoted-printable:;;Charlottenstr. 37/1;T=C3=BCbingen;;72070;Germany email;internet:i...@zopyx.com title:CEO tel;work:+49-7071-793376 tel;fax:+49-7071-7936840 tel;home:+49-7071-793257 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.zopyx.com version:2.1 end:vcard ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] naming Zope
Martijn Faassen wrote: Let's talk about Zope Classic and see whether renaming Zope 2 to that is a step we can realistically take in the near future. Who is in favor of that? -100 Zope 2 is an incredibly established name. It's been around forever. Renaming something that has been out there for years and years and is mentioned in thousands of pages of documentation (including books) is a recipe for confusion. To the outside world, this will sound like renaming for renaming's sake. If you look at the companies that have done this with their brand names, it's normally a disaster and costs a fortune in marketing to set the record straight in people's minds. Don't believe for a moment that the common usage in the chatter in cyberspace and real life is going to change over night (or even over a few weeks or months) just because it is suddenly decreed. It'll be a point of confusion we'll have to deal with for years. Also, if Zope Framework is the set of re-usable libraries and Zope 3 is what remains after factoring out this, then the terms Zope 2 and Zope 3 are probably closer in representation to their original goal. Whether Zope 3 is *successful* in succeeding Zope 2 is another matter. Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] naming Zope
Hi there, Andreas Jung wrote: Renaming Zope 2 to Zope anything does not solve any particular problem and will only lead to confusion. What particular problem is not solved? We may not be talking about the same problem? 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] naming Zope
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08.04.2009 16:47 Uhr, Martijn Faassen wrote: Hi there, Andreas Jung wrote: Renaming Zope 2 to Zope anything does not solve any particular problem and will only lead to confusion. What particular problem is not solved? We may not be talking about the same problem? There is not much to be added to the posting of Martin Aspelli. If you want to rename Zope 2 then name it Zope 2 application server or Zope Application Server in order to make its functionality more clear. A name like Zope Classic is pretty pointless and information-free. Andreas -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkncukMACgkQCJIWIbr9KYxE/ACfWkDPrsFtIRc/rHC7KQg1qPwT YaMAn1PD3os6h9hPoYudybuj3UAu73Es =Xpei -END PGP SIGNATURE- begin:vcard fn:Andreas Jung n:Jung;Andreas org:ZOPYX Ltd. Co. KG adr;quoted-printable:;;Charlottenstr. 37/1;T=C3=BCbingen;;72070;Germany email;internet:i...@zopyx.com title:CEO tel;work:+49-7071-793376 tel;fax:+49-7071-7936840 tel;home:+49-7071-793257 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.zopyx.com version:2.1 end:vcard ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] naming Zope
Hey, Okay, in the interests of making this discussion go quickly, there has been enough negative feedback about renaming Zope 2 to think we have no realistic chance of renaming it. We are still stuck with the following perceived sequence: Zope 2, Zope 3 which implies that people should want to upgrade. How to get out of that bind? We could consider renaming Zope 3. Is there any potential for this? I'll note that I don't think there's as much at risk here: Zope 2, Zope 3, Zope Framework. This isn't a progression that people want to upgrade to either, but it may give the wrong impression. If we don't call Zope Framework 4.0, we'll be fine. We should call its first release 1.0 and there's no implication of a progression. 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] naming Zope
Thanks for posting this. (Thank you too Chris for starting the Zope 4 thread.) Despite the inevitable bike shedding, I think this is a discussion worth having. Here are my opinions, which build on the arguments you gave, even though I disagree with some of your conclusions. 1. I hate Zope Classic. It was a mistake for Coke and I think it would be a mistake for us too. :) 2. I think Zope 3 the application should die. It should go the way of New Coke. 3. I think the word Zope should refer to both the application currently called Zope 2 and the Zope ecosystem, depending on context, although I'm also fine with coming up with another name as long as it doesn't imply obsolescence. :) Jim On Apr 8, 2009, at 9:31 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote: Hi there, There was some discussion recently on how to name Zope in the future. Here are my thoughts and suggestions. First of all some principles I tend to follow surrounding names. * I prefer not introducing too many new names at the same time. A renaming takes a while to percolate through the community and people to gain full understanding of it. * I prefer naming something that already exists (or renaming something) as opposed to naming something that doesn't really exist yet. A name is a handle on something that we can then use to talk about it and reason about it. * Naming discussions tend to lead to endless bikeshed discussion. Naming stuff is easy so everybody has an opinion, including myself. It's not very productive. We don't have clear community mechanisms to make decisions either (the Zope Framework Steering Group isn't it; it only cares about the Zope Framework. Perhaps the Foundation can be it, but it can only approve initiatives from the community in this area, I think. In this context I'll mention the new name Zope Framework that was recently introduced and is probably not yet fully understood by everybody. The Zope Framework is a collection of libraries. It's shared by at least the following web frameworks/app servers: Zope 2 app server, Zope 3 app server, Grok. Other systems such as bfg use a much smaller subset of these libraries. I see this as following the principles above: * it's only introducing a single new name. That's why it at least gets some acceptance now. * it's naming something that we were really already talking about. Unfortunately we conflated it with Zope 3, the thing you start that has a UI and so on, which retarded the development of both Zope 3 and the Zope Framework itself. It's good we have a handle on it now as a separate entity. This Zope Framework name and concept is just now percolating through the community. Zope Framework is *not* the renamed Zope 3, even though it's entirely based on what we used to call Zope 3. Zope 3 continues to exist, as long as there are people who are interested in creating an installation tool for it and care about its UI. Zope Framework is a *separate* entity. Zope 2 and Zope 3 do have confusing names. I prefer to tweak the meaning of Zope to be a project identifier instead of identifying software directly: Zope is all of the stuff developed by the Zope project. We therefore have the Zope Object Database, we have the zope component architecture, the zope interface package. This doesn't work for Zope 2 and Zope 3. It works for Grok by the way: I've been saying Zope Grok sometimes. With Zope 2 and Zope 3, we have version numbers that are at the same time identifiers of a piece of software itself; they're not really version numbers at all. That's why I have been using terms like Zope 2 App Server and Zope 3 App Server, but that isn't very satisfactory either. The 2 and the 3 still imply some kind of evolutionary progression that isn't quite what we are doing. In order to make Zope 2 and Zope 3 fit the pattern, it'd be nice if they had names that fit the Zope is a project, not software pattern. We could rename Zope 2 to Zope Classic, as was suggested. I think we should also rename Zope 3 to something else (that doesn't imply it's the modern future, as there are other alternatives at least as modern around that are more recently developed - we want to get out of that bind). I think renaming Zope 2 to Zope Classic will be easy. If the Zope 2 developers are okay with this, let's go right ahead. Not much discussion needed. Zope 2.11 becomes Zope Classic 11. It's a huge version number, but Zope Classic is over a decade old anyway. Nobody's going to mind. It looks impressive and it should be impressive; Zope Classic has been maintained for a long time by the community. I think it's going to be harder for Zope 3, as the Zope 3 community: those people who care about Zope 3 as a piece of software that can be installed, hasn't fully formed yet. There's a tool called zopeproject which is quite misnamed in the light of the above discussion. While I sometimes do use
Re: [Zope-dev] naming Zope
Martijn Faassen wrote: If we don't call Zope Framework 4.0, we'll be fine. We should call its first release 1.0 and there's no implication of a progression. +1 on calling it Zope Framework 1.0. We need the people who have been burned by past Zope releases to take another look, because we believe Zope is finally getting simpler. Those people would assume Zope-anything 4.0 is just piling on more complexity, while a version 1.0 release would invalidate that assumption and suggest they take another look. Shane ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] naming Zope
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Shane Hathaway sh...@hathawaymix.org wrote: Martijn Faassen wrote: If we don't call Zope Framework 4.0, we'll be fine. We should call its first release 1.0 and there's no implication of a progression. +1 on calling it Zope Framework 1.0. We need the people who have been burned by past Zope releases to take another look, because we believe Zope is finally getting simpler. Those people would assume Zope-anything 4.0 is just piling on more complexity, while a version 1.0 release would invalidate that assumption and suggest they take another look. +1 for Zope Framework 1.0 Regards, Baiju M ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] naming Zope
- 1 for Zope Classic for the same reasons as Martin brought up. juh ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] naming Zope
On 8 Apr 2009, at 16:40, Martijn Faassen wrote: How to get out of that bind? We could consider renaming Zope 3. Is there any potential for this? A thought that occurs to me is we could not rename Zope 2 or Zope 3 but abbreviate Zope 3 to z3 as much as possible. I'm not sure if that's even a good idea, but I think it's a fairly universally understood term for Zope users, and new people wouldn't realise until they asked, at which point they get the explanantion. Matt ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] naming Zope
Previously Martijn Faassen wrote: How to get out of that bind? We could consider renaming Zope 3. Is there any potential for this? I doubt many see Zope 3 as a finished product - I get the impression everyone is using it as a grab bag if tools to build their own applications. It certainly has not seen any marketing push in that direction, unlike Zope 2. This suggests that renaming Zope 3 is not problematic. If we don't call Zope Framework 4.0, we'll be fine. We should call its first release 1.0 and there's no implication of a progression. +1 To stir things up: I would like to suggest renumbering the next Zope 2 release to Zope 4. That reflects the large refactoring that is being done to clean up the codebase and fully eggify Zope. There are enough changes to warrant a new major version bump. Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.netIt is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] naming Zope
Previously Jim Fulton wrote: 3. I think the word Zope should refer to both the application currently called Zope 2 and the Zope ecosystem, depending on context, although I'm also fine with coming up with another name as long as it doesn't imply obsolescence. :) I am somehow reminder of X, which goes under many names. From its manpage: The X Consortium requests that the following names be used when refer- ring to this software: X X Window System X Version 11 X Window System, Version 11 X11 Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.netIt is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] naming Zope
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08.04.2009 18:09 Uhr, Wichert Akkerman wrote: To stir things up: I would like to suggest renumbering the next Zope 2 release to Zope 4. That reflects the large refactoring that is being done to clean up the codebase and fully eggify Zope. There are enough changes to warrant a new major version bump. This proposal makes no sense to me. People thought Zope 3 would be the successor of Zope 2. Now we have to tell that Zope 4 isn't the successor of Zope 3 but basically the old Zope 2 stuff...juggling with numbers at this point will be highly confusing. Andreas -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAknczdAACgkQCJIWIbr9KYxHkwCg5ojz0WLJpelohd3D0H5NKWLM fyYAnA+skxhstuLNoAMQLvJgXGFVKNP/ =sIHb -END PGP SIGNATURE- begin:vcard fn:Andreas Jung n:Jung;Andreas org:ZOPYX Ltd. Co. KG adr;quoted-printable:;;Charlottenstr. 37/1;T=C3=BCbingen;;72070;Germany email;internet:i...@zopyx.com title:CEO tel;work:+49-7071-793376 tel;fax:+49-7071-7936840 tel;home:+49-7071-793257 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.zopyx.com version:2.1 end:vcard ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] the notion of a next in KGS
Hi there, During the post-Pycon sprint Hanno made me aware of a tool called mr.developer. This tool allows you to easily turn a particular package in your buildout into one you want to hack on, without you having to know where to check it out from. mr.developer has a concept of next (Plone-next). Given a release of Plone, it needs to find out where the packages live in a version control system, and whether the next version is the trunk or a branch. During the Grok sprint in late january when z3c.recipe.compattest was developed we ran into the same issue. We want to run compattests against some released set of versions, but also against all development versions. We took a shortcut there and just guess that all packages in the Zope Framework live on svn.zope.org and are the trunks. This is hardly ideal. During the Pycon sprint Hanno also worked on a buildout recipe to draw dependency graphs: z3c.recipe.depgraph. We want to be able to draw the dependency graph of a selected set of versions, but we also want to be able to draw the dependency graph of all development versions. So we have three tools that need this concept. This implies to me we need to expand the notion of KGS. (where I take it in the broad sense where we are talking about a known good set of something; Zope 2, Zope 3, Zope Framework, Grok, etc). The abstract notion of KGS currently is has these two fields (per package part of the KGS): [pypi package name] [version] If we are to expand this with a next notion, it would become like this: [pypi package name] [version] [svn URL] The svn url contains full information about where to check out the next version of the package. If we want to support alternate version control systems, we'd need to expand that, though I hope that all alternate version control systems have a notion of a URL to point to a version. Once we have this extra information, we can publish it. Currently KGS exports the known versions list as a buildout versions section compatible list. We can't put the SVN URL in there. But we could also export another file per KGS release that contained the package name and the SVN URL. I believe mr.developer takes that kind of information. Once we have that, we can then adjust our tools to make use of this extra information. Opinions? People who want to implement this? 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] naming Zope
I see no reason at all to rename anything. remeber the days when there was dBase3. and then dBase4 came allong. technically better but never took off ? To the day things are either dBase or dBase3 compatible. A simmilar situation we have with Zope. Like dBase, Zope is a base technology. How its named is not (very) important. Nobody but techies will be interested. And they quickly will learn what the different bits in the tool-chest are used for. What ever they are named. robert Martijn Faassen schrieb: Hey, Okay, in the interests of making this discussion go quickly, there has been enough negative feedback about renaming Zope 2 to think we have no realistic chance of renaming it. We are still stuck with the following perceived sequence: Zope 2, Zope 3 which implies that people should want to upgrade. How to get out of that bind? We could consider renaming Zope 3. Is there any potential for this? I'll note that I don't think there's as much at risk here: Zope 2, Zope 3, Zope Framework. This isn't a progression that people want to upgrade to either, but it may give the wrong impression. If we don't call Zope Framework 4.0, we'll be fine. We should call its first release 1.0 and there's no implication of a progression. 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ) ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] naming Zope
Andreas Jung wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08.04.2009 18:09 Uhr, Wichert Akkerman wrote: To stir things up: I would like to suggest renumbering the next Zope 2 release to Zope 4. That reflects the large refactoring that is being done to clean up the codebase and fully eggify Zope. There are enough changes to warrant a new major version bump. This proposal makes no sense to me. People thought Zope 3 would be the successor of Zope 2. Now we have to tell that Zope 4 isn't the successor of Zope 3 but basically the old Zope 2 stuff...juggling with numbers at this point will be highly confusing. I agree that would be too confusion, for the reasons Andreas gives. I think we should keep Zope 4 in the realm of april fools joke territory for the time being. 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] naming Zope
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 17:40, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com wrote: How to get out of that bind? We could consider renaming Zope 3. Assuming Zope 3 The Application Server is still going to exist, I think it should be renamed (I suggested Blue Bream). But I have so far seen no indication that anybody wants it, neither during both PyCon nor during the Zope 4 discussion. If we don't call Zope Framework 4.0, we'll be fine. We should call its first release 1.0 and there's no implication of a progression. This is a good point. Unfortunately it's hard to call the framework anything else than the Zope Framework, as it's made up mainly of modules called zope.*. :-) That would give us, based on my earlier suggestion, Zope Framework 1.0 - A Framework for building application servers. Zope 2, Grok and BFG - Application servers using the Zope Framework This is only mildly confusing. It can also only get better with time, as Plone seems to continue away from Zope 2 and onto the framework, which means we in the future may end up with Plone, Grok and BFG being app servers on the Zope Framework. I also think all applications should move over to using repoze by default. BFG already does so, of course, and Plone 4 is set to do so. Hopefully by Zope 2.13, the old publisher can be a horrid memory, and repoze.Zope2 be default. -- Lennart Regebro: Pythonista, Barista, Notsotrista. http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64 ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] naming Zope
Baiju M wrote: On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Shane Hathaway sh...@hathawaymix.org wrote: Martijn Faassen wrote: If we don't call Zope Framework 4.0, we'll be fine. We should call its first release 1.0 and there's no implication of a progression. +1 on calling it Zope Framework 1.0. We need the people who have been burned by past Zope releases to take another look, because we believe Zope is finally getting simpler. Those people would assume Zope-anything 4.0 is just piling on more complexity, while a version 1.0 release would invalidate that assumption and suggest they take another look. +1 for Zope Framework 1.0 Could we just call it Zope Libraries? Whenever I see a description of what the Zope Framework is, it says a collection of libraries, so why not just call it that? Framework to many Python web people implies a runnable application server (the terms got conflated when Pylons and Django started calling themselves web frameworks). I'll step out of the discussion about whether these libraries should be versioned and treated as a unit, everybody knows my opinion about that. - C - C ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] naming Zope
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Shane Hathaway sh...@hathawaymix.org wrote: Martijn Faassen wrote: If we don't call Zope Framework 4.0, we'll be fine. We should call its first release 1.0 and there's no implication of a progression. +1 on calling it Zope Framework 1.0. We need the people who have been burned by past Zope releases to take another look, because we believe Zope is finally getting simpler. Those people would assume Zope-anything 4.0 is just piling on more complexity, while a version 1.0 release would invalidate that assumption and suggest they take another look. Maybe I'm dense, but from the description of the Zope Framework (from http://docs.zope.org/zopeframework/about/index.html) as a collection of libraries managed by the Zope developers, I can't imagine a non-Zope person being interested at all. As far as I can tell, the Zope Framework is a project management structure, not something outsiders would be interested in. -- Benji York Senior Software Engineer Zope Corporation ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] naming Zope
On Apr 8, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote: Hey, Okay, in the interests of making this discussion go quickly, there has been enough negative feedback about renaming Zope 2 to think we have no realistic chance of renaming it. We are still stuck with the following perceived sequence: Zope 2, Zope 3 which implies that people should want to upgrade. That is a problem we ought to fix, IMO. How to get out of that bind? We could consider renaming Zope 3. Is there any potential for this? I think we should call the Zope 3 application ZDecoy. The rest of Zope 3, the parts everyone uses, is covered by Zope Framework. Jim -- Jim Fulton Zope Corporation ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] naming Zope
Benji York wrote: On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Shane Hathaway sh...@hathawaymix.org wrote: Martijn Faassen wrote: If we don't call Zope Framework 4.0, we'll be fine. We should call its first release 1.0 and there's no implication of a progression. +1 on calling it Zope Framework 1.0. We need the people who have been burned by past Zope releases to take another look, because we believe Zope is finally getting simpler. Those people would assume Zope-anything 4.0 is just piling on more complexity, while a version 1.0 release would invalidate that assumption and suggest they take another look. Maybe I'm dense, but from the description of the Zope Framework (from http://docs.zope.org/zopeframework/about/index.html) as a collection of libraries managed by the Zope developers, I can't imagine a non-Zope person being interested at all. As far as I can tell, the Zope Framework is a project management structure, not something outsiders would be interested in. That's good point. I think we've been mixing up the two concepts in the discussions. My position: * right now the Zope Framework is indeed a concept used primarily for project management purposes. The documentation is not geared towards outsiders. * I think we could extend the documentation with some information useful for outsiders. It would take a better introduction in that document and some pointers to where to find out more documentation about the individual libraries. I think we should do this. There are good reasons to present the Zope Framework to the outside world (certainly where we want to attract new developers to Zope 2, Zope 3 or Grok): * non-zope developers would be most interested in the individual libraries. If they want to contribute they'd need to find out how that is done, and this is documented there. * it's the common foundation to these projects. We can therefore show where our community has some measure of unity. * much of our community's development efforts are invested into this stuff! We should talk about what we actually spend a lot of our time doing and talking about. 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] naming Zope
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 18:47, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com wrote: Could we just call it Zope Libraries? Whenever I see a description of what the Zope Framework is, it says a collection of libraries, so why not just call it that? Well, that's a bad description, it's more than just libraries, they fit together, and it's also a development style with the component architecture et al. Framework to many Python web people implies a runnable application server (the terms got conflated when Pylons and Django started calling themselves web frameworks). Oh, that's bad. -- Lennart Regebro: Pythonista, Barista, Notsotrista. http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64 ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] naming Zope
On Apr 8, 2009, at 1:12 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: On Apr 8, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote: [snip] How to get out of that bind? We could consider renaming Zope 3. Is there any potential for this? I think we should call the Zope 3 application ZDecoy. The rest of Zope 3, the parts everyone uses, is covered by Zope Framework. Okay, so we have zdecoy which contains the ZMI. Should we also rename zopeproject to zdecoyproject or could we move in the direction of a more generally useful tool that can be shared between Zope 2 and Grok and roll-it-yourself users? I don't think the application that gets installed when people install from the old Z3 tarball is useful to anyone. I propose deprecating it and calling it anything you want as long as you don't call it Zope 3, which implies a progression from Zope 2. The parts that make it up, even the ZMI, are useful to people and should live on in the Zope Framework. Jim -- Jim Fulton Zope Corporation ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] naming Zope
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jim Fulton wrote: Thanks for posting this. (Thank you too Chris for starting the Zope 4 thread.) Despite the inevitable bike shedding, I think this is a discussion worth having. Here are my opinions, which build on the arguments you gave, even though I disagree with some of your conclusions. 1. I hate Zope Classic. It was a mistake for Coke and I think it would be a mistake for us too. :) 2. I think Zope 3 the application should die. It should go the way of New Coke. 3. I think the word Zope should refer to both the application currently called Zope 2 and the Zope ecosystem, depending on context, although I'm also fine with coming up with another name as long as it doesn't imply obsolescence. :) Amen to all of that. WRT the Framework name: framework is a misleading name for the collection of packages salvaged from the new Coke effort: it is actually a *bunch* of frameworks, in the classic software engineering sense, along with some pure libraries. The notional Zope Framwork is alos *not* what other Python web developers mean when they say web framework: Grok and BFG fit that meaning. Zope2 is really an app server / pluggable application, rather than a web framework. Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tsea...@palladion.com Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJ3QAR+gerLs4ltQ4RAjzaAJ43T+lwhHt9KCiVHsw1V+/tN2aZFACfc5HA bWiGfqU8wk4/dGpDd5pD0ZQ= =qAY1 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] naming Zope
discussion type=bikeshed Tres Seaver wrote: WRT the Framework name: framework is a misleading name for the collection of packages salvaged from the new Coke effort: it is actually a *bunch* of frameworks, in the classic software engineering sense, along with some pure libraries. Zope Toolkit, perhaps? (No relationship to Portal Toolkit. :-] ) /discussion Shane ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] dispatching zope.org's roles as a download source...
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:21, Chris Withers ch...@simplistix.co.uk wrote: Lennart Regebro wrote: On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 10:14, Chris Withers ch...@simplistix.co.uk wrote: PyPI will work in exactly the same way as zope.org for non-eggified products: manual download. What I *would* worry about is non-egg distributions on PyPI causing problems for setuptools and its ilk... Wouldn't easy_install/buildout/etc just fail in those cases? Typically with a no setup.py found or something? I don't know, have you tried it? Only for Python 3 distributions, and that's what happened there. But point me to a non distutils distro for Python 2 on PyPI and I'll try. :) -- Lennart Regebro: Pythonista, Barista, Notsotrista. http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64 ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] naming Zope
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Shane Hathaway wrote: discussion type=bikeshed Tres Seaver wrote: WRT the Framework name: framework is a misleading name for the collection of packages salvaged from the new Coke effort: it is actually a *bunch* of frameworks, in the classic software engineering sense, along with some pure libraries. Zope Toolkit, perhaps? (No relationship to Portal Toolkit. :-] ) +0.5 (better than any other name I've seen yet ;) Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tsea...@palladion.com Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJ3SJQ+gerLs4ltQ4RAtZ7AJ0RzNsLZ0AQBZnBmXJi8UsID2ZVuACgyfGM /JoSyiJ6Gg1wk4vIb9Q4K+k= =rqcA -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Plone vs. Zope2 was: Re: naming Zope
Lennart Regebro wrote: This is only mildly confusing. It can also only get better with time, as Plone seems to continue away from Zope 2 and onto the framework, which means we in the future may end up with Plone, Grok and BFG being app servers on the Zope Framework. The current line of thinking for Plone is about this: Plone 4 will still run on Zope2. Plone 5 will run on Python 3.x and not depend on Zope2 anymore at all. We can all guesstimate on what kind of timeline that will mean. So it's highly likely that Zope 2.12 is the last release of Zope2 that Plone is going to use. Maybe a Zope 2.13 once Python 2.7 is released might be of interest to Plone. But otherwise I don't see any reason for a new Zope 2 feature release anymore from the Plone perspective. Plone is going to continue to use selected Zope libraries as everyone else, but use Repoze or just general Python packages from all over. Personally I want to move Plone from zope.i18n to Babel for example. We are not bound by names or frameworks in our package choices. I also think all applications should move over to using repoze by default. BFG already does so, of course, and Plone 4 is set to do so. Hopefully by Zope 2.13, the old publisher can be a horrid memory, and repoze.Zope2 be default. I don't know if there's going to be anyone, who is going to drive Zope2 itself forward into WSGI land. Plone is just switching to repoze.zope2 and bits of zope.pipeline by itself. The kind of radical and backwards incompatible changes an application like Plone can do, give us much more flexibility here, compared to the more conservative approach a framework needs to have. Hanno ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] naming Zope
Martijn Faassen wrote: Hey, Okay, in the interests of making this discussion go quickly, there has been enough negative feedback about renaming Zope 2 to think we have no realistic chance of renaming it. We are still stuck with the following perceived sequence: Zope 2, Zope 3 which implies that people should want to upgrade. Does it? There's precedence for systems where n and n+1 does not represent a linear upgrade path. The '3' says more if you're starting afresh, this is where you want to start. I think that's still a correct statement. If we don't call Zope Framework 4.0, we'll be fine. We should call its first release 1.0 and there's no implication of a progression. Yes. For the love of God, please don't call the Zope Framework 4.0! Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] naming Zope
Wichert Akkerman wrote: To stir things up: I would like to suggest renumbering the next Zope 2 release to Zope 4. That reflects the large refactoring that is being done to clean up the codebase and fully eggify Zope. There are enough changes to warrant a new major version bump. -100 again. We need to stop confusing people! The only way we could do this would be if we definitely, 100%, with-an-axe killed off any notion of Zope 3 as an app server or application development framework and told everyone the thing you need to be using if you like Zope, is this Zope thing that's basically Zope 2.14). We won't do that. Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] naming Zope
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Martin Aspeli wrote: Wichert Akkerman wrote: To stir things up: I would like to suggest renumbering the next Zope 2 release to Zope 4. That reflects the large refactoring that is being done to clean up the codebase and fully eggify Zope. There are enough changes to warrant a new major version bump. -100 again. We need to stop confusing people! The only way we could do this would be if we definitely, 100%, with-an-axe killed off any notion of Zope 3 as an app server or application development framework and told everyone the thing you need to be using if you like Zope, is this Zope thing that's basically Zope 2.14). We won't do that. We already have: Le roi est mort, vive le roi! and all that. Jim has pronounced Zope3^H^H^H^HDecoy DOA. Nobody is every going to care about Zope3-the-appserver, as opposed to the-libraries-harvested-from-Zope3 (at least, the folks who might care are a tiny minority for branding purposes). Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tsea...@palladion.com Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJ3Wui+gerLs4ltQ4RAtD3AJ9FZBB7ZzAc0xTIM1DjWyhFmVg1PgCfUdP7 j/7TFDt6sC00+tq/8opLbZU= =+sRi -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] naming Zope
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Martin Aspeli wrote: Martijn Faassen wrote: Hey, Okay, in the interests of making this discussion go quickly, there has been enough negative feedback about renaming Zope 2 to think we have no realistic chance of renaming it. We are still stuck with the following perceived sequence: Zope 2, Zope 3 which implies that people should want to upgrade. Does it? There's precedence for systems where n and n+1 does not represent a linear upgrade path. The '3' says more if you're starting afresh, this is where you want to start. I think that's still a correct statement. Nope. There is no point in treating the two as equivalent choices at this point. Nobody cares about the Z3 equivalent to Z2, only the libraries. If we don't call Zope Framework 4.0, we'll be fine. We should call its first release 1.0 and there's no implication of a progression. Yes. For the love of God, please don't call the Zope Framework 4.0! Heh, don't call the *the* Zope framework at all! There are a bunch of frameworks lurking in the codebase, and none of them is a web framework in the sense the rest of the Python web development community users: Grok and BFG do match what they mean, more or less. Tres - -- === Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tsea...@palladion.com Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJ3W2J+gerLs4ltQ4RAhEBAKDLxTlpZDz07ZuTkoby350osK5SoACgoYAC doxYlJBDwzzK8N7CLDWnzVE= =/djo -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Plone vs. Zope2 was: Re: naming Zope
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 05:34, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote: Hanno Schlichting wrote: The current line of thinking for Plone is about this: Plone 4 will still run on Zope2. Plone 5 will run on Python 3.x and not depend on Zope2 anymore at all. We can all guesstimate on what kind of timeline that will mean. There isn't going to *be* a Zope3 to run on. Right. He didn't say that it would though. In this scenario, Plone would be one of the platforms using the Zope Framework, like Grok and BFG. Zope2 is the only game in town, as far as appservers go. So neither Grok nor BFG exist? :-) I don't know how you are thinking here. -- Lennart Regebro: Pythonista, Barista, Notsotrista. http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64 ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Plone vs. Zope2 was: Re: naming Zope
Lennart Regebro wrote: On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 05:34, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote: Hanno Schlichting wrote: The current line of thinking for Plone is about this: Plone 4 will still run on Zope2. Plone 5 will run on Python 3.x and not depend on Zope2 anymore at all. We can all guesstimate on what kind of timeline that will mean. There isn't going to *be* a Zope3 to run on. Right. He didn't say that it would though. In this scenario, Plone would be one of the platforms using the Zope Framework, like Grok and BFG. Zope2 is the only game in town, as far as appservers go. So neither Grok nor BFG exist? :-) I don't know how you are thinking here. I think Tres is trying to draw a disinction between application server and web framework. I don't think that distinction is useful as far as your garden-variety web programmer goes, though, to be honest. - C ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
