Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: Plone participation in the CMF list
Geoff Davis wrote at 2005-8-1 12:53 -0400: > ... >* Are there any particular things in Plone that you think should be pushed >down into CMF? "PloneBatch" seems quite useful. I do not use Plone (due to its GPL) but I found the "FactoryTool" useful. Because it is GPL, I studied its functionality and then made my own implementation (independant of the Plone one). -- Dieter ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: Plone participation in the CMF list
On 2 Aug 2005, at 13:27, Florent Guillaume wrote: Tres Seaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think the discussion around Archetypes, in particular, ended up stalled over the question of whether to "code generation" design should be preferred over "configuration-based" design (as found in CPSSchemas, for instance). Also now that Zope 3 is taking more and more importance in CMF, any schema-based solution should be based on Zope 3 schemas. IMO both Archetypes and CPSSchemas are too big frameworks to include in CMF. Absolutely. I think at least at the CMF developer level we're in agreement that the direction is "towards Zope 3 via Five". Any decision we make about including new code must be made with that in mind. Which leaves the question, because I simply don't know: What is the direction Plone is moving in? jens ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: Plone participation in the CMF list
Tres Seaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think the discussion around Archetypes, in particular, ended up > stalled over the question of whether to "code generation" design > should be preferred over "configuration-based" design (as found in > CPSSchemas, for instance). Also now that Zope 3 is taking more and more importance in CMF, any schema-based solution should be based on Zope 3 schemas. IMO both Archetypes and CPSSchemas are too big frameworks to include in CMF. Florent -- Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France) CTO, Director of R&D +33 1 40 33 71 59 http://nuxeo.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: Plone participation in the CMF list
--On 1. August 2005 12:53:20 -0400 Geoff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:30:20 +0100, Jens Vagelpohl wrote: It would help everyone if the CMF side opened up a little more to ideas coming down from Plone, and if the Plone side stopped reinventing wheels that would be much better off (and benefit everyone) in the CMF or other non-Plone core products. Perhaps some specifics would help. * What wheels do you think Plone has reinvented? Without thinking to longwhy isn't SecureMailHost part of Zope? I agree with Jens that ppl of the Plone community are trying to brew their own beer instead of brewing it for the whole Zope community. I have no idea why. One reason might be the ZPL and the Zope contributor agreement...but I think most Z2 contributors can and do live with the ZPL and the agreement very well. I have also a problem with putting everything under the GPL. I am fine with putting Plone as *application* under the GPL but I have problems with putting common frameworks under the GPL. Plone got CMF for free under the ZPL. But when I was trying to get PTS released under a non-GPL for a project it was nearly impossible to get this done (I would have to ask every single PTS contributor for a permission)...meanwhile I reimplemented the PTS functionality own my own (with 10% of lines of code of PTS). Plone lives from Zope and Zope lives from Plone. I see a lot of Z2 ppl contributing to Plone but I see only a minor number of Plone developers contributing back to Zope/CMF (anyone else except Stefan, Sidnei ?). As Zope 2 release manager (and Jens as CMF release manager) I would like to see a more active participation in the Z2 and CMF development. In addition being less piqued about license issues would help a lot. Andreas pgpjxyLPROKt0.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: Plone participation in the CMF list
On 1 Aug 2005, at 17:53, Geoff Davis wrote: On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:30:20 +0100, Jens Vagelpohl wrote: It would help everyone if the CMF side opened up a little more to ideas coming down from Plone, and if the Plone side stopped reinventing wheels that would be much better off (and benefit everyone) in the CMF or other non-Plone core products. Perhaps some specifics would help. * What wheels do you think Plone has reinvented? * Are there any particular things in Plone that you think should be pushed down into CMF? I don't have anything specific in front of me right now. It is a comment on the massive development effort going into Plone but the trickle that happens at the CMF level, and that most of the CMF level stuff is done by non-Plone people. The general mindset of most Plone developers, as I perceive it from the CMF side, seems to be one of "I'm in Plone code, and I know what to do here, and I don't need to look beyond my world". Very few developers have a broader view and even think of pushing generic functionality or even specific improvements to core functionality that originates in the CMF down to the CMF level. It seems easier for them to monkeypatch and override directly inside Plone code. jens ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
