Martijn Faassen wrote at 2005-2-2 19:09 +0100:
...
What other use cases are floating around?
The CMF user group would like to use Zope3's events and subscriptions to
make creation, deletion and modification interception more flexible.
Me, too, I am very interested in object
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2005-2-2 19:09 +0100:
...
What other use cases are floating around?
The CMF user group would like to use Zope3's events and subscriptions to
make creation, deletion and modification interception more flexible.
Yes, those are definitely useful. I mean,
Christian Heimes wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Originally, I had intended not to include any Zope 3 packages until
Zope 2.9, however, Zope 2.8 has been delayed long enough that I think
it makes sense to include some parts of Zope 3 sooner. I also want
to use some of the Zope 3 persistent code support,
Christian Heimes wrote:
Zope 2.8 should be shipped with all stuff required for Five + some nice
gimmicks like the import* helpers from utilities/.
Here are the modules currently directly imported by Five. I'm not
counting the things that these modules in turn import:
zope.app
Would it make sense to have Zope 2.8 include all of the packages
below other than zope.app and for Five to supply it's own zope.app?
Jim
P.S. We definately want zope.testing too. I'm surprised
that Five isn't using it.
Lennart Regebro wrote:
Christian Heimes wrote:
Zope 2.8 should be shipped
Jim Fulton wrote:
P.S. We definately want zope.testing too. I'm surprised
that Five isn't using it.
Well, I didn't grep the tests directory. ;)
I'm leaning more towards realeasing 2,8 now, and skipping this renaming
thing alltogether. But then, I don't know your reason for wanting to do
it
Lennart Regebro wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
P.S. We definately want zope.testing too. I'm surprised
that Five isn't using it.
Well, I didn't grep the tests directory. ;)
I'm leaning more towards realeasing 2,8 now, and skipping this renaming
thing alltogether. But then, I don't know your
Jim Fulton wrote:
Would it make sense to have Zope 2.8 include all of the packages
below other than zope.app and for Five to supply it's own zope.app?
It would make life harder for Five, and create more work for us, as we'd
have to worry about:
* shipping a zope.app ourselves (does it contain
Jim Fulton wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
[snip]
I'm leaning more towards realeasing 2,8 now, and skipping this
renaming thing alltogether. But then, I don't know your reason for
wanting to do it in Zope 2.8, which I expect is a really good one (it
usually is).
I want zope.interface and
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Anyway, more work for Five developers doesn't mean this shouldn't
happen, but perhaps a review of the use cases driving this would be
helpful. If it's really only about making ZClasses work in Zope 2.8, is
this really the only way forward? If not, I'd prefer to stick to
--On Mittwoch, 2. Februar 2005 19:28 Uhr +0100 Lennart Regebro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree. Get Zope 2.8 out now and then we can work on the Z3 integration
in 2.9, preferrably merging Five into 2.9 completely. That integration
should be rather easy, as Five is already in a workable state,
Jim Fulton wrote:
Originally, I had intended not to include any Zope 3 packages until
Zope 2.9, however, Zope 2.8 has been delayed long enough that I think
it makes sense to include some parts of Zope 3 sooner. I also want
to use some of the Zope 3 persistent code support, which depends on
12 matches
Mail list logo
