Re: [Zope-dev] Defining Zope 3.
Jonathan (dev101) wrote: How about starting with Zope 3 Toolkit and then moving to Zope Toolkit after a year or so. I'll repeat it again: the Zope Toolkit is not intended to fulfill the same role as Zope 3. You imply something like that here. I know that the Zope Toolkit isn't the same as Zope 3 as that's how I designed it to be. It'd underlying Zope 3 just like it's underlying Grok and Zope 2. These are not at all different from each other in the relationship to the toolkit. It seems to be a terribly hard message to get across. I don't know whether that's a flaw in the message or inertia in the community, but whatever it is, we need to take it into account in our communication. 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] Defining Zope 3.
Stephan Richter wrote: On Sunday 19 April 2009, Tres Seaver wrote: -1. As a branding choice (as opposed to a technology), Zope 3 *is* a dead-end: it implies a strategy (replacing Zope 2) which we no longer believe in. I think the consequences of the brand confusion are hard for those uf us inside to estimate, but they are far from trivial. I never communicated to anyone that I believe that Zope 3 is a successor of Zope 2. Other people pushed that message. That message has been out there from the start, no matter how it arose. One way this conclusion was reached was the obvious 3 versus 2. We need to fix that situation. Continuing to push that brand is confusing to outsiders, who don't understand why anyone would still be using Zope 2 four years after the first release of Zope 3. The folks who are using Zope 3 can certainly cope with a split / rename. That's easy for you to say, since you have no vested interest. Stephan, I do think we should seriously consider renaming Zope 3 to something else. But not to Zope Toolkit; we should of course say that a lot of the code in Zope 3 moved to the Toolkit, but we shouldn't just get rid of the rest of the concept, no matter how vague that is right now. If there is to be a new name for Zope 3 and the people involved in it can commit to it, I can write a short piece of text that describes what is going on for the upcoming story site, and we can coordinate on communicating the message without the community. Even without a new name I can write such a message, but it's going to be harder for people to understand what's going on, as people frequently don't read a lot (and why should they?). Getting everybody on message will be crazily hard given the intense disagreements that exist on the way forward, but it is also the only way forward out of this mess and towards resolving the disagreements. 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] [Zope 2.12.0a2]Acquisition+ExtensionClass failures with Python 2.6.2/Linux
Andreas Jung wrote: In addition, some of the Acquistion test fail when trying to test the package alone: [...] Can anyone reproduce this? no, i don't see any failures with neither 2.11.1 nor 2.12.1 on a debian box (32-bit, though). andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - i...@zitc.de friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.2.2 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/ ___ 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] Defining Zope 3.
Hey Jonathan, Jonathan (dev101) wrote: I was going to try to further explain my compromise which tried to move in the direction you are attempting, but upon reflection decided that you are completely right and that no-one else gets it (we are all as dumb as stones), so instead... good-bye. I think you caught the brunt of Lennart's rant here even though he wasn't directing it at you mostly. I do appreciate your contributions to the discussion, even though I'll happily disagree with it. I certainly don't think anyone in this thread is as dumb as stones or dumb in general. 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] Defining Zope 3.
Am Montag, 20. April 2009 09:35 schrieb Martijn Faassen: Stephan Richter wrote: ... I never communicated to anyone that I believe that Zope 3 is a successor of Zope 2. Other people pushed that message. That message has been out there from the start, no matter how it arose. One way this conclusion was reached was the obvious 3 versus 2. We need to fix that situation. I was following the discussion from the beginning and was all the time thinking about the right time for me to step in, seems this now has come, especially as... last night... how to tell the story... Hm, OK, let's try: Last night I had a strange contact with an extraterrestrian Zivilization that somehow, I think via a 5D transgalactic intertemporal loop (they called it a Z-loop), got access to the slides of the 2014 conference of the European Zope User Group (EZUG, or GUZE as it is called in France) in Pariz. And, believe it or not, there was a keynote by Martijn Faassen about the last five years of Zope's history! I could only manage to get a quick glance at the slides (a lot of slides with only little text and without any pictures) before the communication line broke down. So I can only give you a short summary of what I remember: Due to the good work of the Zope Toolkit Steering Group and many other members of the Zope community the Zope Toolkit flourished and was used for the development of a lot of Zope-based applications; also more and more of the Zope 2 code base had been refactored and ported to use the Zope Toolkit, always keeping backward compatibility, of course, and backed by informative deprecation messages. This culminated in the the use of zope.security for Zope 2 and even the replacement of the Zope 2 publisher by that from Zope 3. The Zope 3 ZMI was still alive at that time (due to the good work of Yusei Tahara and others); then (I think it was about 2012 or 2013) somebody replaced the Rotterdam skin by something that looked exactly like the Plone 5.2 standard theme - whereupon the Plone people (with Plone 6) fully switched to Zope 3, thus getting rid of the last parts of Plone configuration that needed the ugly Zope 2 ZMI, simply by using the anyway superior Zope 3 ZMI. In parallel someone - I could not read his full name, I think I remember the first letter of his first name as D, but it may also have been an A - extracted all Zope2-specific code (especially Acquisition but also a lot of other stuff) to a namespace package called zepo (an acronym for Zope's Eternally Persisting Origins) so that things suddenly changed: Now Zope 3 was the Zope application server, while Zope 2 was still there for those who wanted or needed it, just by using the Zope Toolkit together with the zepo Packages (which, by the way, also contained ZClasses again). So Zope 2.39 was de facto replaced by Zepo 1.0 (which still was branded as Zope 2), and Zope 3..., hm, see below... So finally came true what was never intended, thoroughly denied, but nevertheless for some unknown reason believed by almost everyone: That Zope 3 would be the natural successor of Zope 2. The only sad aspect of this wonderful story were the ongoing Zope Naming Flame Wars that started to rage fiercely among the members of the Zope community: While some just wanted to keep the Zope 3 brand (it was version 3.6 btw) others wanted to call it Zope 4 or Zope 5 (you know: 2 + 3 = 5), or even came up with new names like Phoenix (for obvious reasons) or Ezop (some strange acronym; I do not remember what it meant). Some even wanted to call it just Zope - a name that was considered extremely confusing by others. So that's my story. @Martijn: do you still have access to the PSU time machine? It would be great if you could verify this somehow. Or maybe you can even get clearer and more consistent information... Helmut ___ 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] Proposal: Remove the dependency of zope.app.exception on zope.formlib
Am 07.04.2009 um 20:39 schrieb Michael Howitz: Hi, zope.app.exception depends on zope.formlib to use the NamedTemplate for the Unauthorized view. As zope.formlib has many dependencies I propose to depend on z3c.template to get a named template. (Even z3c.layer.pagelet depends on zope.app.exception (for the Unauthorized view) and so it depends on zope.formlib.) I implemented the proposal in svn+ssh://svn.zope.org/repos/main/ zope.app.exception/branches/icemac_no_formlib (I also added a minimized patch of my changes to this e-mail.) Any comments on this implementation? As there where no further comments besides the one of Stefan Richter, I'll merge the proposed changes soon and do a new release. Yours sincerely, -- Michael Howitz · m...@gocept.com · software developer gocept gmbh co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 8 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development ___ 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 Sun Apr 19 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Mon Apr 20 12:00:00 2009 UTC. There were 8 messages: 8 from Zope Tests. Test failures - Subject: FAILED (failures=8) : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Apr 19 20:55:05 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011512.html Tests passed OK --- Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Apr 19 20:44:55 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011507.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Apr 19 20:46:59 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011508.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Apr 19 20:48:59 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011509.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Apr 19 20:51:01 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011510.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.6.1 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Apr 19 20:53:02 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011511.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Apr 19 20:57:06 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011513.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.1 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Apr 19 20:59:06 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011514.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 )
[Zope-dev] Fwd: Defining Zope 3.
Hi, I usually love gmail, but in these last discussions I have trouble to understand, where I should write my reply to, since I can not see a thread. So I write a reply to the first mail and reference to various mails below. Sorry for that confusion to the people who use real mail readers! I would like to comment on this stuff with a bit of an outsider view. Somewhere in 2005-2006 I got a bit disconnected from zope and its evolvement. I was stuck to, I think, 2.8, and lots of Zope2 specialities that exist in Zope2 and not in Zope3. I disliked the things that were in Zope2 but not in Zope3. I must admit, that's a bit of fan boy attitude that I must get rid of. But in the time 2005, 2006, Z3 was the new kid on the block, everybody was wondering who would need how much time to migrate to the new zope. Zope3 was the big rewrite that will be the standard soon. Now I was told that Zope3 is not being seen as a replacement of Zope2. That stuck me as odd. Philips book does not say, that Zope3 will replace Zope2. But he suggests to try to use as much Zope3 technology through five, to have an easy migration. That at least suggests that Zope3 is the future while Zope2 is not. When I go to www.zope.org and click on Zope 3 on the left, I reach a wiki page that states that Zope 3 improves the development experience. There is nowhere written that Zope3 replaces Zope2. But it also suggests it. The English entry of the wikipedia states clearly that Zope3 is not the successor, an older version even points to suggestions from Jim, where is a discussion about the possible future: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope3-dev/2006-February/018415.html I did not check wikipedia, nor did I skim the last three years of mailing list traffic, I wonder, did I not do enough thoroughly research in 2008? = I came back to Zope Land in October 2008. I became responsible for a number of web apps that are based on Zope2, all programming logic in Script Python, and all data in MySQL. Actually even security was implemented on its own based on attributes in sql. I considered this an outdated development model. But I am beginning to understand that this is wrong, that's my damn fan boy attitude. Everybody said, Zope3 is better so Zope2 models that were not taken over clearly must suck. Funnily, I tend to gravitate to products that handle zope2 development this way. 2005/2006 I was also doing stuff, there all I did was considered customization and should be handled in script python. The developers went big ways to make this better and better, they even added svn support for the scripts! But I disliked it, fan boy that I am, and was thinking: Hah, when Zope3 comes along and Zope2 will be outdated, they must rethink their strategy, then they see that this has no future. I disregarded the business decisions these companies made with the way they did Zope development and considered it inferior. But these companies have based their development model on this. They allow customers who do customizations in code, and depend on Zope, to take care that their customers cant break their system. This is their competitive advantage that they cant afford to loose. That is a different culture and mind than the ones who do typical Zope3 development. For the Zope3 developer, the only ones who program are the programmers and keeping the code in file system and unrestricted is much much better because you have all the development tools at hand to have higher productivity and safety. Think versioning system and easy search and replace over multiple files. With this in mind, Zope2 and Zope3 are totally different things. People who use Zope2 and want to continue using it have different goals than the Zope3 developers. I think, both have the right to have their own communities. A different name would help separating these communities. People who do both Zope2 and Zope3 stuff would just be in two communities. = When I started big extensions in October 2008, I wanted to do it future proof, Zope3ey. I knew of grok, thought of it as something on top of Zope3 and repoze, that seemed to be something different altogether. I wanted to do a smooth migration. As much as possible should be written on top of the Zope3 part in Zope2, so that one day I would just run it on Zope3 directly. I didn't want to use grok, because I feared it would add another complication, and I wanted to do one new thing at a time. It didn't work out exactly like that. Stumbling and stumbling but finally succeeding I ended up reimplementing nearly everything. My goal still was to get it all going on Zope3 one day, but I stayed with Zope 2.10. Now after reading the threads, I start to believe that this was the wrong way. I think now grok is not so much on top of Zope3, and maybe I should have taken a deeper look into that. But how shall somebody, who does not wade through the
Re: [Zope-dev] Defining Zope 3.
Helmut Merz wrote: [snip story] So that's my story. @Martijn: do you still have access to the PSU time machine? It would be great if you could verify this somehow. Or maybe you can even get clearer and more consistent information... :) We need to learn more about this Zivilisation! I hope you will inform us if you receive any future mysterious messages. Unfortunately I lost access to the PSU time machine last year because I sent it back to my former self of 2006 to use it there to go back into the past. It's lost in an n-complexity infinite temporal recursion. There is some hope that advanced aquisition paradox engineering could lift it out again, but it hasn't worked yet. 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] Defining Zope 3.
Stephan Richter wrote: On Sunday 19 April 2009, Tres Seaver wrote: -1. As a branding choice (as opposed to a technology), Zope 3 *is* a dead-end: it implies a strategy (replacing Zope 2) which we no longer believe in. I think the consequences of the brand confusion are hard for those uf us inside to estimate, but they are far from trivial. I never communicated to anyone that I believe that Zope 3 is a successor of Zope 2. Other people pushed that message. It's not a message that needs pushing. In virtually every other piece of software ever created, when a version 3 comes out, it's meant to supersede version 2. No amount of navel-gazing is going to make that less confusing to people who are not happy to read the 40 messages of nuanced debate a day this list has produced lately. 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] Fwd: Defining Zope 3.
Hey Patrick, Patrick Gerken wrote: [snip] I did not check wikipedia, nor did I skim the last three years of mailing list traffic, I wonder, did I not do enough thoroughly research in 2008? I think the strong impression was given that Zope 3 was going to be the new bright future and that Zope 2 was going to be replaced by Zope 3, one way or the other. It doesn't matter what exactly was said, the impression was given. The path that this took has evolved over time. The original ideas about Zope 3 being able to run Zope 2 code, perhaps with a migration script, never went anywhere. But along another path in some ways we are already in that future, as Zope 2 apps use a large amount of Zope 3 approaches and code. One thing that happened recently is that we extracted the concept of the Zope Toolkit from Zope 3. We'd now say that Zope 2 uses the Zope Toolkit. It could use more of the toolkit, it could use the toolkit better, and the toolkit itself is imperfect, but it's going forward, and that's good. [snip] I disregarded the business decisions these companies made with the way they did Zope development and considered it inferior. But these companies have based their development model on this. They allow customers who do customizations in code, and depend on Zope, to take care that their customers cant break their system. This is their competitive advantage that they cant afford to loose. That is a different culture and mind than the ones who do typical Zope3 development. Yes, I think that this is an important realization; that development using the ZMI, while flawed in many ways, is also *superior* in other ways to the development model that Zope 3 (and the Zope Toolkit) use. I talked a bit about that here: http://faassen.n--tree.net/blog/view/weblog/2008/09/19/0 One response to this is to try to make the development model of the Zope Toolkit less challenging for developers. That's Grok. Another response is to make there simply less code to worry about when developing; that's BFG. Hopefully we'll manage to continue to evolve the Toolkit in the direction of increased simplicity too. But there are other responses. One is to reconsider through the web development patterns and see how they might be supported in the context of the Zope Toolkit. I have some ideas... For the Zope3 developer, the only ones who program are the programmers and keeping the code in file system and unrestricted is much much better because you have all the development tools at hand to have higher productivity and safety. Think versioning system and easy search and replace over multiple files. With this in mind, Zope2 and Zope3 are totally different things. People who use Zope2 and want to continue using it have different goals than the Zope3 developers. I think, both have the right to have their own communities. A different name would help separating these communities. People who do both Zope2 and Zope3 stuff would just be in two communities. I think it's valuable for those communities to share code and approaches, but yes, I think a different name (for either Zope 2 or Zope 3, where Zope 3 would be the road of least resistance) would help make clear the vast differences between Zope 2 and Zope 3. There are a large number of overlaps too, but fundamentally the Zope 2 TTW web development model is quite different. [snip] I think now grok is not so much on top of Zope3, and maybe I should have taken a deeper look into that. In the past, when Zope 3 meant both Zope Toolkit and Zope 3 the thing you install and start developing with, Grok was on top of Zope 3 in part. Now we simply state that Grok is built on top of the Zope Toolkit. It mostly adds an alternative configuration mechanism to the Zope Toolkit (through Martian), and tries to make it easier to hook up applications this way. But how shall somebody, who does not wade through the mailing lists, make an informed decision? No. This is why I think good information on the web and a consistent message are both important. We're not there yet for both. I think we need a home page that says: want to get started with Zope? Here are the options. That is being worked on. If the Zope3 App Server with its zmi is becoming more of an implementation to show whats possible with the ZTK, why should it be called Zope3? I don't think it's to show what's possible. I think it is a development platform that pre-integrates the Zope Toolkit and adds a bit (documentation, installation methods, a user community). People start to get annoyed of this discussion, since some started to say bad words. I for one am happy about this discussion, because I hope that It might result in a better common understanding and after that a better public statement, whats happening, what frameworks are around and which have what advantages and disadvantages. Me too! Also, I want be be in the Zope foundation, so that Lennart makes me drunk
Re: [Zope-dev] Defining Zope 3.
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 08:32:52AM -0600, Shane Hathaway wrote: Given that definition, Zope Toolkit will start relatively small, since much of Zope 3 does not yet qualify. However, as people refine packages, the packages will be reconsidered for inclusion in the Zope Toolkit, and the Zope Toolkit will hopefully grow into something similar to what we currently know as Zope 3. Zope 3 can't die; people are relying on it and maintaining it. The maintainers are doing a rather good job too, IMHO. The checkins list has been active lately. We don't have to create any more Zope 3 tarballs, but we should keep up the KGS. The Zope Toolkit will be the subset that's good for building applications, web sites, and frameworks. Zope 3 will be designed only for building applications and web sites. +1, this sounds like a good way forward. Albertas ___ 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] Defining Zope 3.
Albertas Agejevas wrote: On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 08:32:52AM -0600, Shane Hathaway wrote: Given that definition, Zope Toolkit will start relatively small, since much of Zope 3 does not yet qualify. However, as people refine packages, the packages will be reconsidered for inclusion in the Zope Toolkit, and the Zope Toolkit will hopefully grow into something similar to what we currently know as Zope 3. Zope 3 can't die; people are relying on it and maintaining it. The maintainers are doing a rather good job too, IMHO. The checkins list has been active lately. We don't have to create any more Zope 3 tarballs, but we should keep up the KGS. The Zope Toolkit will be the subset that's good for building applications, web sites, and frameworks. Zope 3 will be designed only for building applications and web sites. +1, this sounds like a good way forward. Thanks. It occurred to me that one simple test of a Zope naming scheme is to consider what employers will write in job descriptions. Consider these alternatives: 1. Candidate must be have Zope 3 experience. 2. Candidate must be experienced with the Zope Toolkit. #1 is ambiguous. If I'm highly experienced with Grok or Repoze, doesn't that count? What if I'm a modern Plone developer? If the HR department does the hiring, they are likely to disqualify good candidates. #2 should allow developers experienced with Grok, Repoze, modern Plone, and possibly even Twisted, but does not allow old-school Zope 2 or inexperienced Python developers. This seems much more like what typical employers want to express. 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] Defining Zope 3.
Shane Hathaway wrote: 1. Candidate must be have Zope 3 experience. 2. Candidate must be experienced with the Zope Toolkit. Of course I meant... 1. Candidate must have Zope 3 experience. 2. Candidate must have Zope Toolkit experience. 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] Defining Zope 3.
Am Montag, 20. April 2009 16:11 schrieb Martijn Faassen: Helmut Merz wrote: [snip story] So that's my story. @Martijn: do you still have access to the PSU time machine? It would be great if you could verify this somehow. Or maybe you can even get clearer and more consistent information... :) We need to learn more about this Zivilisation! I hope you will inform us if you receive any future mysterious messages. Hm, I don't think I'd like to contact them again - they look like this: http://www.ff2d.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/caveman.jpg Though I would be curious to find out what will happen to TTW development... Unfortunately I lost access to the PSU time machine last year because I sent it back to my former self of 2006 to use it there to go back into the past. It's lost in an n-complexity infinite temporal recursion. There is some hope that advanced aquisition paradox engineering could lift it out again, but it hasn't worked yet. For A-APE you would have to employ XMMP (eXtended Multidimensional Monkey Patching). Or you could just remove all acquisition-related stuff (hint: put it into zepo.acquisition) and reboot the universe. Helmut ___ 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] Python 2.4 + Zope 2.12 [Was: Zope Tests: 7 OK, 1 Failed]
Do we still care about Python 2.4 + Zope 2.12? Do we go Python 2.6 only? Thanks, Stefan On 20.04.2009, at 14:00, Zope Tests Summarizer wrote: Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Sun Apr 19 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Mon Apr 20 12:00:00 2009 UTC. There were 8 messages: 8 from Zope Tests. Test failures - Subject: FAILED (failures=8) : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Apr 19 20:55:05 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011512.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] Python 2.4 + Zope 2.12 [Was: Zope Tests: 7 OK, 1 Failed]
Stefan H. Holek wrote: Do we still care about Python 2.4 + Zope 2.12? Do we go Python 2.6 only? We still care about Python 2.4, I made a premature checkin of a new zope.session version that is BBB incompatible. Bad me only tested under Python 2.6 before checking in. Hanno On 20.04.2009, at 14:00, Zope Tests Summarizer wrote: Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Sun Apr 19 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Mon Apr 20 12:00:00 2009 UTC. There were 8 messages: 8 from Zope Tests. Test failures - Subject: FAILED (failures=8) : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Apr 19 20:55:05 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-April/011512.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 ) ___ 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] Defining Zope 3.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 18:42, Shane Hathaway sh...@hathawaymix.org wrote: It occurred to me that one simple test of a Zope naming scheme is to consider what employers will write in job descriptions. That's a bloody good point. -- Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok 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] Defining Zope 3.
Lennart Regebro wrote: On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 18:42, Shane Hathaway sh...@hathawaymix.org wrote: It occurred to me that one simple test of a Zope naming scheme is to consider what employers will write in job descriptions. That's a bloody good point. Thanks. I take it this point reinforces your proposal that we should both create Zope Toolkit as a subset of Zope 3, *and* rename Zope 3 to something else. We could rename Zope 3 to Zope Toolkit Reference Application for the InterNet, or ZTRAIN. This name expresses several intents: - Zope 3 is the reference application for building something for the Internet on top of Zope Toolkit. - Not all of the Zope community is using it. If everyone were using it, we would call it simply Zope. However, someone is using it, otherwise we wouldn't bother naming it. - Zope 3 was derailed (pun, ha ha) a bit and now we're trying to put it back on track. - People who like Ruby on Rails might like this too. Also, it follows the open source tradition of slightly whimsical names. The logo could be a train engine driven by a Zope fish. :-) 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] Defining Zope 3.
Lennart Regebro wrote: On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 23:32, Shane Hathaway sh...@hathawaymix.org wrote: Also, it follows the open source tradition of slightly whimsical names. The logo could be a train engine driven by a Zope fish. :-) Done. Does this mailing list accept attachements? Wowsers. LOL! 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] Defining Zope 3.
On 4/20/09 3:35 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote: Stephan Richter wrote: On Sunday 19 April 2009, Tres Seaver wrote: -1. As a branding choice (as opposed to a technology), Zope 3 *is* a dead-end: it implies a strategy (replacing Zope 2) which we no longer believe in. I think the consequences of the brand confusion are hard for those uf us inside to estimate, but they are far from trivial. I never communicated to anyone that I believe that Zope 3 is a successor of Zope 2. Other people pushed that message. That message has been out there from the start, no matter how it arose. One way this conclusion was reached was the obvious 3 versus 2. We need to fix that situation. I think Martijn's right on this point. FWIW, there was a mailing list setup to discuss this when it came up in Jan 2003: http://archives.free.net.ph/mindex/zope2-migrat...@20021201.05..en.html Here's a useful thread showing a dialog between Seb Bacon, Jim, and me: http://archives.free.net.ph/message/20030214.073424.f58e0929.en.html We have arrived at a different result, of course, but it is still useful to agree on the background. We also had the discussion when the decision was made to drop the X in Zope 3X, without fulfilling one part of the bullet points for why there was an X. Stephan, I agree that you didn't communicate that message. But I think it is pretty easy to show that Zope communicated that message, officially and unofficially. --Paul ___ 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 )
