Or Zed is the part of Zope that can be used without Zope.
Yes, it's always been the Zed Object Publishing Environment. Now
the Zed can get a job :-](I'm neutral regarding the suggestion.)
--
jean
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
I wasn't trying to define app server. I was describing the Zope app
server.
As long as you realize you do risk confusion even by saying 'Zope app
server'. To me, Zope 3 is an app server, so when you say 'the Zope app
server' will include its functionalities too.
Martijn Faassen wrote:
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
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
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
Martijn Faassen wrote:
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
On Thu, 2006-02-03 at 10:32 -0500, Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 02 March 2006 10:29, Stefane Fermigier wrote:
Geoff Davis wrote:
I think that the idea of giving Zed its own, distinct identity is great.
I think it is stupid.
Me too!!
Not I. Particularly not if we want
On Thu, 2006-02-03 at 16:49 +0100, Paul Everitt wrote:
I think Geoff's core point could be met by keeping the word Zope for
the app server. I think Geoff's deeper point was to rethink the word
used for the CA, which actually doesn't want to be thought of us an app
server.
+1
--
Rocky
Geoff Davis wrote:
No, I think I understood you. I was being sloppy in my use of language.
I should have said something more like Zope 3 then becomes an application
server built around the Zed library.
Or Zed is the part of Zope that can be used without Zope.
--
hilsen/regards Max M,
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*
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
Geoff Davis wrote:
I think that the idea of giving Zed its own, distinct identity is great.
I think it is stupid.
We (Zope Corp + the Zope Community) have spent 8 years building the Zope
brand, and you want to restart from scratch ?
S.
--
Stéfane Fermigier, Tel: +33 (0)6 63 04 12 77
On Thursday 02 March 2006 10:29, Stefane Fermigier wrote:
Geoff Davis wrote:
I think that the idea of giving Zed its own, distinct identity is great.
I think it is stupid.
Me too!!
Regards,
Stephan
--
Stephan Richter
CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student)
Web2k -
Geoff Davis wrote:
+1 on Jim's suggestion #2.
However, if I am understanding things correctly, it doesn't really sound
like door #2 entails a huge deviation from from our current course of
bringing Zope 2 and Zope 3 together gradually. I don't really care what
the converged product is called,
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 10:38:03 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
I think that the idea of giving Zed its own, distinct identity is great.
Zope 3 is a _huge_ overhaul and it needs to be obvious to the world that
it is dramatically better than crufty old Zope 2. Zope 3 then becomes the
Zed application
Geoff Davis wrote:
Yes, and the use of the new name Z or Zed is a way to emphasize that
the Zed library is NOT a big, monolithic app server; rather, it's
something new and cool.
Zope 3 is new and cool.
Or at least, let's spin it this way.
Screencasts, podcasts, 14'59 wikis (quicker than
Stefane Fermigier wrote:
Geoff Davis wrote:
I think that the idea of giving Zed its own, distinct identity is great..
I think it is stupid.
We (Zope Corp + the Zope Community) have spent 8 years building the Zope
brand, and you want to restart from scratch ?
Hehe, poor Geoff. :)
In the
Geoff Davis wrote:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 10:38:03 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
I think that the idea of giving Zed its own, distinct identity is great.
Zope 3 is a _huge_ overhaul and it needs to be obvious to the world that
it is dramatically better than crufty old Zope 2. Zope 3 then becomes the
Paul Everitt wrote:
...
People have it set in their brain that Zope is a monolithic web
application server. Hard to dispel that meme.
Yup. I'd rather adjust the meme to:
Zope is a agile flexible extensible app server with rich services.
:)
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL
Stefane Fermigier wrote:
I think that the idea of giving Zed its own, distinct identity is great.
I think it is stupid.
We (Zope Corp + the Zope Community) have spent 8 years building the Zope
brand, and you want to restart from scratch ?
Good point. There's the question: Does this zed
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Good point. There's the question: Does this zed thing need a different
name at all? If we want other people to pick it up, then it seems like a
good idea to distinguish it from Zope-the-app-server. Paul seems to
suggest that in his response.
How about zopelib?
Benji York wrote:
Good point. There's the question: Does this zed thing need a different
name at all? If we want other people to pick it up, then it seems like a
good idea to distinguish it from Zope-the-app-server. Paul seems to
suggest that in his response.
How about zopelib?
If we want
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 16:18:27 -, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Zope is a agile flexible extensible app server with rich services.
You forgot Enterprise.
Martin
--
(muted)
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 11:00, Jim Fulton 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.
Except that Michael Kerrins recent WebDAV work will shaddow Zope 2's support.
If I
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 12:33, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Are you kidding?
No, I'm not kidding.
+1 on the entire post from me too. And I would really like to see the
questions he raised answered.
We just recovered from this BBB overpromise, now we want to make another one.
We also just
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 09:12:08AM -0500, Stephan Richter wrote:
| On Tuesday 28 February 2006 11:00, Jim Fulton 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.
|
| Except that
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 09:24, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
| Except that Michael Kerrins recent WebDAV work will shaddow Zope 2's
| support. If I understand his improved implementation correctly, then it
| is very, very cool!
Did you run the litmus tests against it? :)
I don't know what that
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 09:29:05AM -0500, Stephan Richter wrote:
| On Wednesday 01 March 2006 09:24, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
| | Except that Michael Kerrins recent WebDAV work will shaddow Zope 2's
| | support. If I understand his improved implementation correctly, then it
| | is very, very
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 09:32, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
What you think about turning those into functional doctests?
Of course a very, very big +1. :-)
Though I woul split them up, so that we can only test features that we know we
have implemented.
Regards,
Stephan
--
Stephan Richter
CBU
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 14:32, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 09:29:05AM -0500, Stephan Richter wrote:
| On Wednesday 01 March 2006 09:24, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
| | Except that Michael Kerrins recent WebDAV work will shaddow Zope 2's
| | support. If I understand his
Martijn Faassen wrote:
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.
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 12:33, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Are you kidding?
No, I'm not kidding.
+1 on the entire post from me too. And I would really like to see the
questions he raised answered.
OK, done.
We just recovered from this BBB overpromise,
What are
On 3/1/06, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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?
Well, not neccesarily. Things change, and the plan for the future has
not always been the same. The important
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 3/1/06, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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?
Well, not neccesarily. Things change, and the plan for the future has
not always been
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 10:06, Jim Fulton wrote:
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.
I don't think Martijn is arguing against a roadmap, he just
On 3/1/06, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
Well, not neccesarily. Things change, and the plan for the future has
not always been the same. The important part is that we work in the
same direction.
How is that possible if we don't communicate the vision?
In the
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
|
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
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
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
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
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
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 -
OK, some initial, fuzzy comments:
On 2/27/06, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In this vision, Zope 3 would have to become a lot more like
Zope 2, or we would lose features.
You are thinking about things like TTW development and such? Because I
see that as add-on products of different
On Monday 27 February 2006 11:06, 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.
That would sound good to me!!!
Regards,
Stephan
--
Stephan
47 matches
Mail list logo
