Lennart Regebro wrote:
I like the vision of Zope2 becoming a set of extra packages you
install for Zope3, to get backwards compatibility. Maybe this is the
same as what you call Zope 5, maybe not.
+1
--
Dmitry Vasiliev (dima at hlabs.spb.ru)
http://hlabs.spb.ru
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lennart Regebro a écrit :
| OK, some initial, fuzzy comments:
|
| On 2/27/06, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
|
| - Zope 5 will be the application server generally known as Zope. It
|
Jim Fulton wrote:
I'd like to get feedback on two possible visions for the future of
Zope 2 and Zope 3.
1) Our current vision (AFAIK) is that Zope 3 will eventually
replace Zope 2
[snip]
2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
[snip]
Thoughts?
My initial reaction is:
Max M wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
Zope 2 is complicated! It has too many layers of everything.
The reason for Zope 3 is to make it simpler for developers.
Therefore I believe that any succesfull strategy would require Zope 3 to
be usable
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
[snip]
I would vote for spelling out Zed (which would also be a little easier
to google but might create trademark problems). The namespace package
could either be 'z' or 'zed'.
Then again, I really should take Jim's side and stay out of naming
decisions.
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 12:31:33AM +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
I will also note that just because Zope 2 won't die, it doesn't mean we
shouldn't clean it up. Eventually, Zope should mostly be reusing things
from Zed.
+sys.maxint
I think this will be the way
Hey,
I have another comment about Zope 5, sparked by something Jeff Shell wrote.
Currently we have a clear path to evolution. Zope 3 evolves at its pace,
and Zope 2 evolves mostly by catching up with Zope 3, replacing more and
more bits with Zope 3 bits, which often takes considerable
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
[snip]
I would vote for spelling out Zed (which would also be a little easier
to google but might create trademark problems). The namespace package
could either be 'z' or 'zed'.
Then again, I really should take Jim's side and stay out
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 07:22, Martijn Faassen wrote:
I don't see how we need a new vision. This has been the vision
(evolution, not revolution) that I've been carrying out with Five for
the last few years and thanks to a lot of contributions by a large range
of developers, we've been
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 08:23:16PM +, Chris Withers wrote:
| Sidnei da Silva wrote:
| Basically you need (a properly licensed) VC 7, and Python 2.4.2
| installed. Not much else has changed. Unfortunately we haven't gotten
| around setting up VC 7 here.
|
| Okay, once I have those two, then
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 03:58, Shane Hathaway wrote:
Unfortunately, this discussion is too fuzzy for me to understand exactly
what's being proposed. How about something concrete: will the Zope 3 in
vision #2 have a ZMI, and will typical ZODB objects have a __parent__
and __name__?
Martijn Faassen wrote:
So, my proposal would be to tone down the vision to what we have
already: a co-evolving Zope 3 and Zope 2, with Zope 2 following and Zope
3 leading (or Zope 2 driving Zope 3 forward, however you want to see
it). No renaming necessary. No change of course necessary. Zope
Stephan Richter wrote:
1) Our current vision (AFAIK) is that Zope 3 will eventually
replace Zope 2
2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
As you probably know already, I am -1 on the second proposal, since it will
disallow us to finally get rid of the old Zope 2 code.
Martijn Faassen wrote:
I will also note that just because Zope 2 won't die, it doesn't mean we
shouldn't clean it up. Eventually, Zope should mostly be reusing things
from Zed.
+sys.maxint
I think this will be the way we get a real forward migration path for an
awful lot of us who are
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
I don't see how we need a new vision. This has been the vision
(evolution, not revolution) that I've been carrying out with Five for
the last few years and thanks to a lot of contributions by a large range
of developers, we've been
--On 28. Februar 2006 16:06:55 +0100 Philipp von Weitershausen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think focusing on one app server and a dedicated set of libraries
would be a good alternative to two concurring app servers.
+1
-aj
pgpe9Th17c7O9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
1) Our current vision (AFAIK) is that Zope 3 will eventually
replace Zope 2
2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
As you probably know already, I am -1 on the second proposal, since it will
disallow us to finally get
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Max M wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
Zope 2 is complicated! It has too many layers of everything.
The reason for Zope 3 is to make it simpler for developers.
Therefore
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 17:06 +0100, Lennart Regebro wrote:
OK, some initial, fuzzy comments:
...
You are thinking about things like TTW development and such?
Among other things.
Zope 2 is more mature than Zope 3 in a lot of areas. WebDAV
and process management are a couple of examples that
On Feb 28, 2006, at 9:30 AM, Benji York wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
So, my proposal would be to tone down the vision to what we have
already: a co-evolving Zope 3 and Zope 2, with Zope 2 following
and Zope 3 leading (or Zope 2 driving Zope 3 forward, however you
want to see it). No
On 2/28/06, Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the other major point is the door #2 proposal takes pressure
off of Zope3: under that regime, Zope3 does not need to grow all the
features present in Zope2, which door #1 *does* imply.
I still would like to know wich these missing
Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
I see Zope 5 being a combination of Zope 2 and Zope 3, keeping
the best of both.
I think we already have Zope 5, and it's called Zope 2.9.
Perhaps I'm wrong. If so, how does Zope 5 differ from Zope 2.9?
Regards,
Martijn
Tres Seaver wrote:
[snip]
In this vision, the Zope 3 project should stay where it is and push
things forward. That doesn't mean Five should be ignored by Zope 3
developers, but it should be compartmentalized in people's minds. Zope 3
does innovation, Five does integration, and then the big
Martijn Faassen wrote:
I see Zope 5 being a combination of Zope 2 and Zope 3, keeping
the best of both.
I think we already have Zope 5, and it's called Zope 2.9.
I'd rather say it's called Zope 2.15 or something :).
Philipp
___
Zope-Dev maillist
On 2/28/06, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Zope 2 is more mature than Zope 3 in a lot of areas. WebDAV
and process management are a couple of examples that occur to me
off the top of my head.
Ah, and here I got an answer to the question I just posted. :)
Much of Zope2 maturity is there
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 17:29 +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
I see Zope 5 being a combination of Zope 2 and Zope 3, keeping
the best of both.
I think we already have Zope 5, and it's called Zope 2.9.
Perhaps I'm wrong. If so, how does Zope 5 differ from Zope
Gary Poster wrote:
[snip]
On Feb 28, 2006, at 10:06 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
I think focusing on one app server and a dedicated set of libraries
would be a good alternative to two concurring app servers.
...if the single app server is based on acquisition, __bobo_traverse__
and
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
I see Zope 5 being a combination of Zope 2 and Zope 3, keeping
the best of both.
I think we already have Zope 5, and it's called Zope 2.9.
I'd rather say it's called Zope 2.15 or something :).
Seriously, we are developing
Why? x[0] is much faster than x.startswith().
Or do you expect to have empty path components?
Florent
Andreas Jung wrote:
Log message for revision 65598:
using startswith()
-=-
Modified: Zope/trunk/lib/python/OFS/Traversable.py
On 2/28/06, Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-if name[0] == '_':
+if name.startswith('_'):
Just a question: Is this only a matter of stylistic changes, or is
there some, like, speedup involved?
--
Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo http://www.nuxeo.com/
CPS Content
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 17:29 +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
I see Zope 5 being a combination of Zope 2 and Zope 3, keeping
the best of both.
I think we already have Zope 5, and it's called Zope 2.9.
Perhaps I'm wrong. If so, how does Zope 5
Python/Zope Dev, Rockville, MD | 60-100k | Relo OK
Job Description: The main part of our development will take place in our
Rockville, MD office. We are looking for a developer who will work from this
office. The envisioned services are web applications and thorough knowledge and
expertise in
On Feb 28, 2006, at 12:33 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Are you kidding?
No, I'm not kidding.
+1 to what Martijn said in this email (not quoting the whole thing to
save precious bandwith).
___
Zope-Dev maillist -
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope trunk 2.4 Linux zc-buildbot.
Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/
Build Reason: changes
Build Source Stamp: 3389
Blamelist: andreasjung,ctheune
BUILD FAILED: failed test
sincerely,
-The Buildbot
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope trunk 2.4 Windows 2000
zc-bbwin6.
Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/
Build Reason: changes
Build Source Stamp: 3389
Blamelist: andreasjung,ctheune
BUILD FAILED: failed test
sincerely,
-The Buildbot
Dario Lopez-Kästen wrote at 2006-2-13 08:06 +0100:
...
It can -- with some difficulties:
Templates and scripts are called because they define
index_html as None.
If you give a template or script a non-None index_html,
then this object will be called instead of the
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope trunk 2.4 Windows 2000
zc-bbwin6.
Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/
Build Reason: changes
Build Source Stamp: 3396
Blamelist: andreasjung,chrism,nathan,sidnei
BUILD FAILED: failed failed slave lost
sincerely,
-The Buildbot
I am considering volunteering to rewrite ZClasses.
Who do I speak to?
Chris
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
Lennart Regebro wrote:
-if name[0] == '_':
+if name.startswith('_'):
Just a question: Is this only a matter of stylistic changes, or is
there some, like, speedup involved?
In general, using str.startswith and str.endswith is a failsafe because
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Christopher Lozinski wrote:
I am considering volunteering to rewrite ZClasses.
Who do I speak to?
You're in the right place. The usual mode for such a thing is to draft
a proposal, outlining the risks and proposing a solution, and then to
--On 28. Februar 2006 10:31:04 -1000 Christopher Lozinski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am considering volunteering to rewrite ZClasses.
Who do I speak to?
You can basically start this as your own project. Starting Zope 2.10
are officially deprecated. Any new development for Zope 2 and 3
--On 28. Februar 2006 21:41:24 +0100 Philipp von Weitershausen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
-if name[0] == '_':
+if name.startswith('_'):
Just a question: Is this only a matter of stylistic changes, or is
there some, like, speedup
But Lennart is right that in this case name should in general never be an
empty string and in addition startswith() is in this case 100% slower
than using slicing.
No, I'm not, Florent is. I just asked. :-)
--
Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo http://www.nuxeo.com/
CPS Content Management
Martijn Faassen wrote:
I think focusing on one app server and a dedicated set of libraries
would be a good alternative to two concurring app servers.
...if the single app server is based on acquisition,
__bobo_traverse__ and friends, objectValues and friends, ZCatalog,
and so on, I'd
44 matches
Mail list logo
