[Zope3-dev] Re: visions, brands and roadmaps in the sand
For sure the past two days threads are raising my concern... We are using Zope3 internally, with profit. We have followed all the change of directions in the roadmap, since the initial vision: Designer/scripter/developer, TTW, ZCML for scripters/administrators, a beautiful framework for developer to play with. Today, Zope3 is, basically, an application server, only python product developers are confortable with it. And still, today, it has deprecated (?!) features in it's release (check the things you can add in a site folder), are they hope or promises? *sigh* For sure, we have no intention to spend (again) efforts in digging into Zope2, searching for functionality that we are missing in zope3. I'm hoping that someone would follow Michael Kerrin road... --- Paolo Stephan Richter wrote: This paragraph hits the nail on the head. I repeat in a slightly derived form: STABILITY IS OUR MESSAGE! I have already received several private comments expressing concern about the discussion implying a fear of instability of direction. Regards, Stephan ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: Two visions
Terry Hancock wrote: On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:41:08 +0100 Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could you please stop using a new name for Zope 3 or the zope package? You can explain this perfectly well using the existing, well established names. I strongly disagree with this sentiment. To me the name change for Zope 3 seems essential. I'm not strongly inclined as to whether Z or Zed or ? is a good choice for the name, but I think the google search argument suggests it should be spelled out rather than an initial. Also, if you want it pronounced zed, you'd better spell it out for us Americans who will otherwise call it zee. I agree that it'd have been better for us, in retrospect, if Zope 3 were not called Zope at all, but something else. I also agree that if we change any name, changing the name of Zope 3 to something else is probably the least damaging and has potential gains, such as dropping the commitment that Zope 3 will do what Zope 2 can, and so on. It also has the potential gain that non-Zope people will be more likely to adopt the use of Zope 3 code. Whether the gain outweighs the damage done I'm not so sure of. I recommend any message change that requires requires significant future development activity to make true. So, a proposal that says we need have a version of Zope that can run both Zope 2 and Zope 3 is fine, but I don't want to change the name of Zope 2 now based on the assumption that this will happen 2 years from now. It won't happen soon and, though I don't assume and hope this, it might never happen. Regards, Martijn ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] DisplayWidget
Is there any reason why zope.app.form.browser.widget.DisplayWidget doesnt implement zope.app.form.interfaces.IDisplayWidget, or is this a bug? - Shaun ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] visions, brands and roadmaps in the sand
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2006-3-2 18:44 +0100: ... I worry about losing brands we've worked on hard to establish. While many people do not understand the difference between Zope 2 and Zope 3, many others have heard about Zope 3 and they know it is not Zope 2. I do not understand the loss of brands fear... MS renames its core technologies every few years (at least) and nevertheless, it has a surprising market success... -- Dieter ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] visions, brands and roadmaps in the sand
Lennart Regebro wrote at 2006-3-2 20:39 +0100: ... 2. Zope3 may also get slightly streamlined, so that Zope3 is what is needed to run Zope2 but not more. That means that Zope3 would lose the ZMI. I would consider this a severe loss. The ZMI provides menu guided operations. This is much easier that to work with configuration files and API's -- especially for casual users. -- Dieter ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] visions, brands and roadmaps in the sand
On 3/3/06, Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MS renames its core technologies every few years (at least) Eh... no they don't. It's been called MS Windows, and MS Office and the like for like 15-20 years now. :-) In fact I can't think of any case where Microsoft have renamed any technology... They do however from time to time rewrite things completely from scratch, but keep the name. :-) Windows 2, Windows 3 and NT have completely different code bases, but the same name. They did however include reasonable backwards compatibility from the start, which Zope3 didn't. And yes, that caused some problems, but since Bill Gates don't pay us, it was necessary. Heck, MS Basic was a core technology between the start of the company and up until C# came along, and I defy you to try to run a 1970s MS Basic program in the MS Word Basic extension! :-p -- Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo http://www.nuxeo.com/ CPS Content Management http://www.cps-project.org/ ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] buildbot failure in Zope3 trunk 2.4 Linux tlotze
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope3 trunk 2.4 Linux tlotze. Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/ Build Reason: changes Build Source Stamp: 3570 Blamelist: alga BUILD FAILED: failed test_2 sincerely, -The Buildbot ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] buildbot failure in Zope3 trunk 2.4 Linux zc-buildbot
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope3 trunk 2.4 Linux zc-buildbot. Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/ Build Reason: changes Build Source Stamp: 3571 Blamelist: alga BUILD FAILED: failed test_2 sincerely, -The Buildbot ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] buildbot failure in Zope3 trunk 2.4 Windows 2000 zc-bbwin3
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope3 trunk 2.4 Windows 2000 zc-bbwin3. Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/ Build Reason: changes Build Source Stamp: 3570 Blamelist: alga BUILD FAILED: failed test_2 sincerely, -The Buildbot ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] buildbot failure in Zope3 trunk 2.4 Linux tlotze
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope3 trunk 2.4 Linux tlotze. Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/ Build Reason: changes Build Source Stamp: 3571 Blamelist: alga BUILD FAILED: failed test_2 sincerely, -The Buildbot ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] buildbot failure in Zope3 trunk 2.4 Windows 2000 zc-bbwin3
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope3 trunk 2.4 Windows 2000 zc-bbwin3. Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/ Build Reason: changes Build Source Stamp: 3571 Blamelist: alga BUILD FAILED: failed test_2 sincerely, -The Buildbot ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-Users] Re: [Zope3-dev] Visionaire! (All your problems, solved)
Martin Aspeli wrote: On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 11:49:31 -, Lennart Regebro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This should be Zope3 as it is now. A couple of things can go away. Maybe the rotterdam skin, I don't know. Definitely the default Folder objects and such. People, especially Zope2 people, think that you are supposed to use them. You aren't, you are supposed to build your own. Yeah, why the hell are there there then? ;-) I like the default Folder objects and use them. Building your own is a waste of time if they do exactly what you want. Regards, Martijn ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: Visionaire! (All your problems, solved)
Martin Aspeli wrote: Personally, I still find it hard to know where the line goes between the ZMI and my own UI code, if I should be extending the ZMI or replacing it. Perhaps because I'm tainted by Zope 2's idea of the ZMI, though. I'm fairly sure the idea with Zope 3 was to be able to re-use bits of the ZMI rather than having to re-write everything from scratch as you do in Zope 2... cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Visionaire! (All your problems, solved)
I like this a whole lot. This is *much* better than diluting the Zope brand (Zed is dead, baby). If people really say things like Oh, I can't use zope.testbrowser because I'm not using Zope it's time to school them, not to ruin our brand: You only need the Zope CA for that, dude, so stop whining. Zope already worked when people like the RoR creators attended primary school. The term Zope having a bad rap in some circles is not Zope's fault, and can not be fixed by calling it Zed (to the contrary, I'd think). IMO, Stefan On 2. Mär 2006, at 01:42, Jeff Shell wrote: - Zope 3 CA: The Zope Component Architecture. Core services. Would include zope.publisher and most other current top level zope.* things. Usable as a library, as a publisher for other environments, perhaps as a simple standalone server. Easy to deploy against WSGI, Paste.deploy, whatever. - Zope 3 AS: The Zope 3 Application Server. A Zope 3 CA stack using the ZODB, ILocation, and most of the zope.app services but without any content objects. Perhaps only an application server configuration skin (process management) but no ZMI. Maybe have the current configuration installable as an option. - Zope Suite (or Zope Web or Zope DE): This is the full application server perhaps Jim is envisioning. A comprehensive web based user interface, based on features (and implementations) of both Zope 2 and Zope 3 application servers and offerings. -- Anything that happens, happens. --Douglas Adams ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: Notice: zope.interface is now a separate project
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Paul Winkler wrote: On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 12:38:38AM +0100, Thomas Lotze wrote: What was the reason for choosing these and not choosing others? Minimal dependencies. We thought we should start with easier packages. Right. The selected packages tend to be dependencies for the others, as well. The eventual plan is to have *all* the non-app Python packages distributable as eggs, as well as moving out large chunks of stuff currently under zope.app. Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFECPgC+gerLs4ltQ4RAvajAJ479R8ytjILUGWdSOcQnQ+20s2OuwCgsycR dgzEfQzDKugojSjbfZxC3Sg= =mfxA -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions
Jim Fulton wrote: Martijn Faassen wrote: [snip] Sounds like the original vision of Zope 3 without the X. I thought we never got around to developing this stuff the last time. Actually, no. We originally said that we would provide a transition path. I said over and over that this was *not* going to be backward compatibility. I guess this was too complex a message. I think your post proves that it was. I know exactly what was said, and we, the Zope community, said it wrong, including the backwards compatibility bit. I quote the release notes for Zope X3.0: The X in the name stands for experimental, since this release does not try to provide any backward-compatibility to Zope 2. What do you think that implied? Maybe you didn't say backwards compatibility, but our release notes certainly said something about this. This message wasn't new: 1b. Zope 3X is the preliminary version of Zope 3. It is built from the ground up, paying attention to the lessons learned from Zope 2 and CMF. It is not a product but intended to let developers get familiar with the new architecture early. 1c. Zope 3 is the mainline release intended for production use and including backwards compatibility to Zope 2. It was here: http://cvs.zope.org/Zope3/doc/security/background.rst?rev=1.3 I had a lot more to say in this posting which I recommend you read: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope3-dev/2006-February/017939.html [snip snip] I don't see how *saying* what Zope 5 will contain will make it *exist* any time sooner. You seem to be arguing against a roadmap, which is puzzling. Obviously, predictions of the future are imperfect. I'm not arguing against a vision. I'm worried about marketing and what we will be implicitly implying. I want to be very careful about roadmaps as we can't guarantee they will happen, and broken promises in this will be worse than no promises at all. I think, for now, our vision should be sketched with what we have right now (Zope 2 and Zope 3) and where we think they are going. Talk about it names we already know, or if we really make new things, new names that are not Zope for the time being. [snip] The current story of Zope 2, Five and Zope 3 gets us in the right direction (Zope 5, if you want to call it that, though I would definitely want to introduce yet another name in the mix), step by step. We don't promise too much to people. We don't raise the wrong expecations anymore. What expectations did we raise? See my referenced mail: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope3-dev/2006-February/017939.html AFAIK, the official story is that Zope 3 will eventually replace Zope 2 and that Zope 2 will be augmented with Zope 3 technology to make the transition easier. I don't think there are many people, if any, really working on making Zope 3 a credible replacement for Zope 2. There are people working on making it into something wonderful, but not a replacement for Zope 2. Do you agree that this is the current story? If not, and if *we* cannot agree on what the current story is, think how confused everyone else must be. I think that is indeed the current story. It's not complete: Zope 3 technology is replacing Zope 2 today in that I can write a Zope 3-like application in Zope 2. In that sense, Zope 2.9 *is* the Zope 3 without X. Zope 3 technology is not only in Zope 2 for the transition, but also because it's cool stuff we can actually use profitably now, not only because we might be able to transition to Zope 3 more easily in some future. I think part of this story is that the Zope 2 people will work on Zope 3-based technology to replace bits of Zope 2 step by step, bit by bit. I believe this is happening in the context of Five, the Zope 2 core (the event system), and the CMF. I think part of this story is also that Zope 2 is safe and is going to be around for a lng time. Emphasizing these bits of the story would be good, and I think we agree on that. We need to be careful though we also are seen to stay the course: introducing new version numbers and names of the mix is I think right now the wrong action to take. [snip] It won't contain the features you list unless someone actually does all that work. That's right. Someone needs to do the work. Similarly, Zope 3 won't be a replacement for Zope 2 unless someone does the work. What's your point? That we shouldn't plan? That we shouldn't have a common vision for where we're going, or communicate that vision? These are rhetorical questions... My point is: Have a vision, but plan step by step. Don't promote the presumed endpoint of the steps too much yet. Evolve the message step by step too. Change the message slowly, not all at once, to avoid creating confusion and unrest. Don't change the message before we're ready. Introducing a new message always carries a strong risk of being misunderstood. The alternative is to put Zope 5 in the nebulous future when all the work
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions
Jim Fulton wrote: [snip] I think that having one name for two radically different, though related, things is very confusing. There are really 2 main technologies that people care about: 1. The Zope app server. This is characterized by things like an object file system, through-the-web scripting and/or development, pluggable course-grained add-ons, etc. I must warn you that what you call 'app server' is not what I call app server; I believe that using the word appserver for this set of technologies could be very confusing to people. I believe Zope 3 is an application server. I believe, say, Django is an application server too, even though as far as I know it lacks an object file system and through the web scripting. Can we find another word for what you mean? Regards, Martijn ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Re: Two visions
On Mar 3, 2006, at 3:08 AM, Max M wrote: Splitting up Zope to let people use seperate pieces of Zope aka Zed is not a valid reason. Good software practise is a valid reason. But catering for those few developers that wants to use just a few pieces is probably not worth the effort. Here's one of the reasons I want good packaging: I'd like to continue using Zope-the-technology even if the Zope-the-brand loses all recognition. Whether in the future I'm working on DjangoRailsGears 3.0 or Zope3006 or Plone-NG, I'd like to be able to carry the various bits of technology that make up Zope around with me reasonably easily and run it under different Python platforms. I say this with my cynical and Zope-bigoted consultant hat on. There. I said it. ;-) - C ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Zope 3 / Z3ECM April sprint in Paris at Nuxeo
Nuxeo, with the kind help of the Zope team of Chalmers University, plans to organise a Zope 3 sprint on April 3-7 in our premises in Paris. The focus of the sprint, like last year's successful sprint, will be ECM (Enterprise Content Management). Last year's Paris sprint was a turning point for the Zope roadmap, when it was decided to include Five in Zope 2.8, a decision which led to the current state of the Zope landscape (CMF 2.0 / CPS 3.4 / Plone 2.5 / Silva 1.5 - all full of Zope 3 components, etc.) We hope to make similar significant advances this year. Program: The current state of Z3ECM is currently best described in these slides: http://www.z3lab.org/sections/news/z3ecm-roadmap-september8593/ as well as on the www.z3lab.org website itself. 4 main themes for the sprint are currently emerging: - Repository: there is some unfinished conceptual and preliminary implementation work to be done regarding document repository design (including relations between documents, ORM-based storage, etc.) Ref: http://www.nuxeo.com/publications/slides/versioning-and-relation/downloadFile/file/versioning-ep-2005.pdf http://www.z3lab.org/sections/front-page/design-features/ecm-platform-concept/ - CPSSkins v3: Jean-Marc Orliaguet already has a very advanced implementation, that currently is Zope 3 only. We plan to bridge it with Zope 2 using Five to make it available on the current CMF-based platforms (at least CPS 3.4). Ref: http://www.z3lab.org/sections/blogs/jean-marc-orliaguet/archive_view?category=cpsskins http://svn.z3lab.org/trac/z3lab/browser/cpsskins/branches/jmo-perspectives/ - AJAX: we plan to generalize the current approach of CPSSkins v3, which is to use a JavaScript MVC library that exchanges JSON data structures with the server, to all the AJAX interactions. Ref: http://blogs.nuxeo.com/sections/blogs/tarek_ziade/archive_view?category=AJAX http://www.z3lab.org/sections/blogs/jean-marc-orliaguet/archive_view?category=AJAX - XForms: we intend to make XML Schemas and XForms the new model for documents and their representation in Z3ECM. This is specially important for interoperability with the Apogee project (http://apogee.nuxeo.org/). Ref: http://blogs.nuxeo.com/sections/blogs/eric_barroca/2005_09_05_ajax-does-not-compete/ At Nuxeo, we intend to make all these developments available either on top on CPS 3.4, or for the next iteration of CPS (CPS 3.6). But we'd also like to share these developments with the rest of the Zope 3 / CMF / Plone / etc. communities, if they are interested. Participation: The sprint is open to experimented Zope 3 / CMF / CPS / Plone developers. We already have booked 4-5 developers from Nuxeo, and Jean-Marc Orliaguet and Dario Lopez-Kärsten from Chalmers. Please join the discussion on the z3lab mailing list (http://lists.nuxeo.com/mailman/listinfo/z3lab) or contact me ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) if you would like to participate. The sprint is free (but you have to pay for your own travel and accomodation). We (Nuxeo) will modestly provide free pizzas / sandwiches / diet Coke, etc. NB: the dates (3-7 April) have been chosen so that long distance travelers can go to the Swiss sprint afterwards (8-13 April). If this is inconvenient for a majority of sprinters, we may change to the week after the Swiss sprint (17-21 April) but this change has to be decided quickly. I will confirm the date in a later announcement (next week). So, once again, let's followup on the z3lab list. S. -- Stéfane Fermigier, Tel: +33 (0)6 63 04 12 77 (mobile). Nuxeo Collaborative Portal Server: http://www.nuxeo.com/cps Gestion de contenu web / portail collaboratif / groupware / open source! ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
