Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] Clarification re: Zope X3.1, 2.8
Jens Vagelpohl wrote: [snip] It appears there is an assumption that merging Z2 and Z3 code within Z2 itself is an unmitigated good thing, but IMHO, each is complicated enough in their own right that I'd personally prefer to be dealing with one or the other at any given time and not both. This isn't exactly idle whining either, I need to do this when I maintain Z4I code, and it's definitely not a walk in the park; it's moderately difficult to do and also difficult find people who have the skills to help too. Right on. Now, I have no idea how similar or different the Z3-Z2 marriage in 2.8 is to that unholy alliance that is used for Z4I, but working on it for Z4I is an exercise in frustration every time I had to do it. If Z4I uses the Zope 2 - Zope 3 interfaces compatibility package, then it's quite different. Let's just put it this way; I don't know anything about Z4I beyond the existence of this interface package, which is something I didn't like and didn't use in Five. The two technologies therefore appear quite distinct.. You can try Five with Zope 2.7 by downloading it, putting Zope X3.0's code on the python path, and starting Zope. We've already used Five in Zope 2.7, in a Silva, CPS and Plone context. These are complicated Zope 2 applications, and with Five installed, they remain working as before. 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] Re: [Zope3-dev] Clarification re: Zope X3.1, 2.8
Chris McDonough wrote: On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 12:23, Martijn Faassen wrote: Chris McDonough wrote: [snip] I assume these caveats are spelled out here because Z3 developers don't want to slow down Z3 development to test/maintain Z2 compatibility. I know a lot about Z2 code, but I know very little about Z3 code. I'd like that to change, but it's likely that I'll just not have the bandwidth to make sure Z3-inside-Z2 works. If that just means I can't use Z3 features but nothing else breaks, it's probably fine, but if Z3 integration actively breaks Z2, it's likely I'll just need for some extended period of time to continue to use and maintain 2.7. Several of us *do* have the bandwidth to make sure Zope 3 in Zope 2 works, as we're actively using it. Five has been from the start a project that explicitly tried to interfere with both Zope 2 and Zope 3 as little as possible. If you don't use the Zope 3 features in Zope 2, they're just not there. Great. I hope you'll forgive the skepticism, it's just that the a lot of the people talking about doing this merge haven't actually checked anything into Zope 2 in a pretty long time, and commit frequency is typically a good indicator (maybe the only indicator) of who might continue to maintain the codebase in the future. You're right to be skeptical. On the other hand, I haven't seen you commit anything into Five anytime recently. :) Anyway, we need to motivate people to contribute. I've contribued plenty to other projects, not much to Zope, so I started wondering why that might be so. One reason is definitely that a contribution to Zope now may only result in a release of this in the uncertain future, so I have little medium term motivation to contribute. Most of my business motivation is short and medium term, and I believe I share this with many people. It appears there is an assumption that merging Z2 and Z3 code within Z2 itself is an unmitigated good thing, but IMHO, each is complicated enough in their own right that I'd personally prefer to be dealing with one or the other at any given time and not both. This isn't exactly idle whining either, I need to do this when I maintain Z4I code, and it's definitely not a walk in the park; it's moderately difficult to do and also difficult find people who have the skills to help too. Does anyone else share this skepticism or am I about to get shouted down? ;-) I've already done all this worrying for you and did the right thing with Five, so you're just ignorant. ;) Right. That's clear. I'm glad you've committed to maintaining it. Sure, not a problem. I don't know what exactly makes Z4I complicated; I also know Five can be complicated, but the complications are isolated and the developer experience should be easy enough. 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] Re: [Zope3-dev] Clarification re: Zope X3.1, 2.8
On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 12:23, Martijn Faassen wrote: Chris McDonough wrote: [snip] I assume these caveats are spelled out here because Z3 developers don't want to slow down Z3 development to test/maintain Z2 compatibility. I know a lot about Z2 code, but I know very little about Z3 code. I'd like that to change, but it's likely that I'll just not have the bandwidth to make sure Z3-inside-Z2 works. If that just means I can't use Z3 features but nothing else breaks, it's probably fine, but if Z3 integration actively breaks Z2, it's likely I'll just need for some extended period of time to continue to use and maintain 2.7. Several of us *do* have the bandwidth to make sure Zope 3 in Zope 2 works, as we're actively using it. Five has been from the start a project that explicitly tried to interfere with both Zope 2 and Zope 3 as little as possible. If you don't use the Zope 3 features in Zope 2, they're just not there. Great. I hope you'll forgive the skepticism, it's just that the a lot of the people talking about doing this merge haven't actually checked anything into Zope 2 in a pretty long time, and commit frequency is typically a good indicator (maybe the only indicator) of who might continue to maintain the codebase in the future. It appears there is an assumption that merging Z2 and Z3 code within Z2 itself is an unmitigated good thing, but IMHO, each is complicated enough in their own right that I'd personally prefer to be dealing with one or the other at any given time and not both. This isn't exactly idle whining either, I need to do this when I maintain Z4I code, and it's definitely not a walk in the park; it's moderately difficult to do and also difficult find people who have the skills to help too. Does anyone else share this skepticism or am I about to get shouted down? ;-) I've already done all this worrying for you and did the right thing with Five, so you're just ignorant. ;) Right. That's clear. I'm glad you've committed to maintaining it. - 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] Re: [Zope3-dev] Clarification re: Zope X3.1, 2.8
Chris McDonough wrote: [snip] I assume these caveats are spelled out here because Z3 developers don't want to slow down Z3 development to test/maintain Z2 compatibility. I know a lot about Z2 code, but I know very little about Z3 code. I'd like that to change, but it's likely that I'll just not have the bandwidth to make sure Z3-inside-Z2 works. If that just means I can't use Z3 features but nothing else breaks, it's probably fine, but if Z3 integration actively breaks Z2, it's likely I'll just need for some extended period of time to continue to use and maintain 2.7. Several of us *do* have the bandwidth to make sure Zope 3 in Zope 2 works, as we're actively using it. Five has been from the start a project that explicitly tried to interfere with both Zope 2 and Zope 3 as little as possible. If you don't use the Zope 3 features in Zope 2, they're just not there. It'd be great if active Z3 developers could actually help make new releases of Z2 once Five is integrated but the above makes it sound like a we'll throw it over the wall and you make it work sort of thing. If it's the latter, maybe as devil's advocate, I need to ask what the point is here? I think there's a need for active Five developers who do this. Luckily such a group of us exists. We'll make sure Zope 3 in Zope 2 works, Zope 2 developers just focus on Zope 2, and Zope 3 developers focus on Zope 2. We'll try to keep out of your hair as much as possible, and you stay out of our hair, and we'll all cooperate just fine. We've been doing this for over half a year already, after all. As the systems start to merge more in the future, this will get more complicated. But again, Five has been designed to minimize this problem, by carefully being minimally invasive in its Zope 2 integration. We're already using Five with large, complicated systems such as Plone, CPS and Silva, so I think we've been successful. It appears there is an assumption that merging Z2 and Z3 code within Z2 itself is an unmitigated good thing, but IMHO, each is complicated enough in their own right that I'd personally prefer to be dealing with one or the other at any given time and not both. This isn't exactly idle whining either, I need to do this when I maintain Z4I code, and it's definitely not a walk in the park; it's moderately difficult to do and also difficult find people who have the skills to help too. Does anyone else share this skepticism or am I about to get shouted down? ;-) I've already done all this worrying for you and did the right thing with Five, so you're just ignorant. ;) This is a distribution deal more than an integration deal. We're packaging stuff together so we can start using Five more in our projects, and deploy it a lot more easily. 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] Re: [Zope3-dev] Clarification re: Zope X3.1, 2.8
- It *will be* the responsibility of the Zope 2 devs to make sure Z2 works with the version of Z3 bundled at the time. snip It'd be great if active Z3 developers could actually help make new releases of Z2 once Five is integrated but the above makes it sound like a we'll throw it over the wall and you make it work sort of thing. If it's the latter, maybe as devil's advocate, I need to ask what the point is here? It came across the same way for me. Not only we Z3 people will go along on our merry way, let the Z2 people deal with the problems, it's also about bundling a version of Z3 that is apparently not within the Z3 developers' path anymore (at least from the description). I didn't answer until I read Chris' post because I work on CMF when I work on Zope, so I don't do much as far as checkins to Zope goes. He says what I only thought, and I had the same thing in the back of my mind: If this becomes an obstacle I just won't touch it anymore. Yes, I will get into Z3 at some point myself, but preferably at a time of my own choosing... It appears there is an assumption that merging Z2 and Z3 code within Z2 itself is an unmitigated good thing, but IMHO, each is complicated enough in their own right that I'd personally prefer to be dealing with one or the other at any given time and not both. This isn't exactly idle whining either, I need to do this when I maintain Z4I code, and it's definitely not a walk in the park; it's moderately difficult to do and also difficult find people who have the skills to help too. Right on. Now, I have no idea how similar or different the Z3-Z2 marriage in 2.8 is to that unholy alliance that is used for Z4I, but working on it for Z4I is an exercise in frustration every time I had to do it. jens ___ 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 )
