On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com wrote:
On 4/11/09 7:32 PM, Roger Ineichen wrote:
That much dependency cleanup would be fantastic.
Yes, cool, but what exactly whould you like to cleanup?
The bits that I use are already pretty nicely cleaned up. But in
Andreas Jung wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08.04.2009 15:31 Uhr, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Let's talk about Zope Classic and see whether renaming Zope 2 to that is
a step we can realistically take in the near future. Who is in favor of
that?
- -100
Renaming
Andreas Jung wrote:
There is not much to be added to the posting of Martin Aspelli. If you
want to rename Zope 2 then name it Zope 2 application server or Zope
Application Server in order to make its functionality more clear.
A name like Zope Classic is pretty pointless and information-free.
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
To stir things up: I would like to suggest renumbering the next Zope 2
release to Zope 4. That reflects the large refactoring that is being
done to clean up the codebase and fully eggify Zope. There are enough
changes to warrant a new major version bump.
I could
On 4/11/09 9:40 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
To stir things up: I would like to suggest renumbering the next Zope 2
release to Zope 4. That reflects the large refactoring that is being
done to clean up the codebase and fully eggify Zope. There are enough
changes to warrant
Chris McDonough wrote:
On 4/11/09 9:40 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
Zope 4 is built using Zope Toolkit 1.0, as is Grok, repoze.cfg, and
something else
repoze.bfg is actually *not* build with the Zope Toolkit at least as Zope
Toolkit is defined by the Steering Group. It uses only
On 4/11/09 4:39 PM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
On 4/11/09 9:40 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
Zope 4 is built using Zope Toolkit 1.0, as is Grok, repoze.cfg, and
something else
repoze.bfg is actually *not* build with the Zope Toolkit at least as Zope
Toolkit is defined by the
On 4/11/09 7:32 PM, Roger Ineichen wrote:
That much dependency cleanup would be fantastic.
Yes, cool, but what exactly whould you like to cleanup?
The bits that I use are already pretty nicely cleaned up. But in theory, if we
did a more reasonable job of dependency management, I'd be able
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 01:36, Shane Hathaway sh...@hathawaymix.org wrote:
Grr. Way to end a bikeshed discussion. Now what are we going to drone
on about?
Wait, wait, it should be called Zope Platform!
--
Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok
http://regebro.wordpress.com/
+33 661 58 14
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2009-4-8 15:31 +0200:
...
In order to make Zope 2 and Zope 3 fit the pattern, it'd be nice if they
had names that fit the Zope is a project, not software pattern. We
could rename Zope 2 to Zope Classic, as was suggested. I think we should
also rename Zope 3 to
Wichert Akkerman wrote at 2009-4-9 10:40 +0200:
Previously Shane Hathaway wrote:
discussion type=bikeshed
Tres Seaver wrote:
WRT the Framework name: framework is a misleading name for the
collection of packages salvaged from the new Coke effort: it is
actually a *bunch* of frameworks,
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 09:23, Dieter Maurer die...@handshake.de wrote:
I will continue to speak of Zope 2 (not Zope Classic).
Right. The classic/legacy renaming is only necessary if we were to
move to Zope 4, which we aren't, or continue to talk about Zope 3,
which we aren't.
--
Lennart
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Friday 10 April 2009, Dieter Maurer wrote:
think renaming Zope 2 to Zope Classic will be easy. If the Zope 2
developers are okay with this, let's go right ahead.
I will continue to speak of Zope 2 (not Zope Classic).
+1. I think we gain nothing by renaming Zope 2
Previously Martin Aspeli wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
To stir things up: I would like to suggest renumbering the next Zope 2
release to Zope 4. That reflects the large refactoring that is being
done to clean up the codebase and fully eggify Zope. There are enough
changes to warrant a
Previously Shane Hathaway wrote:
discussion type=bikeshed
Tres Seaver wrote:
WRT the Framework name: framework is a misleading name for the
collection of packages salvaged from the new Coke effort: it is
actually a *bunch* of frameworks, in the classic software engineering
sense,
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Shane Hathaway wrote:
discussion type=bikeshed
Tres Seaver wrote:
WRT the Framework name: framework is a misleading name for the
collection of packages salvaged from the new Coke effort: it is
actually a *bunch* of frameworks, in the classic software
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Martin Aspeli wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
To stir things up: I would like to suggest renumbering the next Zope 2
release to Zope 4. That reflects the large refactoring that is being
done to clean up the codebase and fully eggify Zope. There are enough
:)
Regards
Roman Lacko
-Original Message-
From: zope-dev-boun...@zope.org [mailto:zope-dev-boun...@zope.org] On Behalf
Of Lennart Regebro
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 11:18 AM
To: Martin Aspeli
Cc: zope-dev@zope.org
Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] naming Zope
Zope Toolkit is a good name
Zope Toolkit is a good name. But so is Zope Framework. And honestly,
it's more a framework than a toolkit. A toolkit is a collection of
reasonably independent tools. OK, so Zope Framework is actually loads
of frameworks, one for components, one for security one for web forms,
and this and that.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Apr 8, 2009, at 11:29 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
To stir things up: I would like to suggest renumbering the next
Zope 2
release
Hey,
Joy, another naming discussion. Oh well, I started it. :)
Zope Toolkit is better name than Zope Framework. I'm fine with renaming
Zope Framework to Zope Toolkit if:
* someone goes and changes the name in:
* the Zope Framework sphinx documentation in SVN
* renames the SVN directory
Martijn Faassen wrote:
If nobody volunteers to do this (feel free to organize more volunteers),
we'll stick with Zope Framework.
Let me know if you're going to do this and when you're done.
FWIW, I think this particular pile of libraries is in fact best
described by the name framework,
I can't believe no one's suggested Zope Mega, yet.
Chris
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.comwrote:
Hey,
Joy, another naming discussion. Oh well, I started it. :)
Zope Toolkit is better name than Zope Framework. I'm fine with renaming
Zope Framework to
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 23:07, Chris Rossi ch...@archimedeanco.com wrote:
I can't believe no one's suggested Zope Mega, yet.
It sounds stupid.
The Zope Ultra Component Framework Toolkit, though, THAT's a name with panache!
--
Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok
On 4/9/09 4:25 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey,
Joy, another naming discussion. Oh well, I started it. :)
Zope Toolkit is better name than Zope Framework. I'm fine with renaming
Zope Framework to Zope Toolkit if:
* someone goes and changes the name in:
* the Zope Framework sphinx
Previously Martijn Faassen wrote:
I think renaming Zope 2 to Zope Classic will be easy. If the Zope 2
developers are okay with this, let's go right ahead. Not much discussion
needed. Zope 2.11 becomes Zope Classic 11. It's a huge version number,
but Zope Classic is over a decade old anyway.
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Martijn Faassen wrote:
I think renaming Zope 2 to Zope Classic will be easy. If the Zope 2
developers are okay with this, let's go right ahead. Not much discussion
needed. Zope 2.11 becomes Zope Classic 11. It's a huge version number,
but Zope Classic is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08.04.2009 15:31 Uhr, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Let's talk about Zope Classic and see whether renaming Zope 2 to that is
a step we can realistically take in the near future. Who is in favor of
that?
- -100
Renaming Zope 2 to Zope anything
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Let's talk about Zope Classic and see whether renaming Zope 2 to that is
a step we can realistically take in the near future. Who is in favor of
that?
-100
Zope 2 is an incredibly established name. It's been around forever.
Renaming something that has been out there
Hi there,
Andreas Jung wrote:
Renaming Zope 2 to Zope anything does not solve any particular problem
and will only lead to confusion.
What particular problem is not solved? We may not be talking about the
same problem?
Regards,
Martijn
___
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08.04.2009 16:47 Uhr, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
Andreas Jung wrote:
Renaming Zope 2 to Zope anything does not solve any particular problem
and will only lead to confusion.
What particular problem is not solved? We may not be talking
Hey,
Okay, in the interests of making this discussion go quickly, there has
been enough negative feedback about renaming Zope 2 to think we have no
realistic chance of renaming it.
We are still stuck with the following perceived sequence:
Zope 2, Zope 3
which implies that people should want
Thanks for posting this. (Thank you too Chris for starting the Zope 4
thread.) Despite the inevitable bike shedding, I think this is a
discussion worth having.
Here are my opinions, which build on the arguments you gave, even
though I disagree with some of your conclusions.
1. I hate
Martijn Faassen wrote:
If we don't call Zope Framework 4.0, we'll be fine. We should call its
first release 1.0 and there's no implication of a progression.
+1 on calling it Zope Framework 1.0. We need the people who have been
burned by past Zope releases to take another look, because we
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Shane Hathaway sh...@hathawaymix.org wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
If we don't call Zope Framework 4.0, we'll be fine. We should call its
first release 1.0 and there's no implication of a progression.
+1 on calling it Zope Framework 1.0. We need the people
- 1 for Zope Classic for the same reasons as Martin brought up.
juh
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
On 8 Apr 2009, at 16:40, Martijn Faassen wrote:
How to get out of that bind? We could consider renaming Zope 3. Is
there
any potential for this?
A thought that occurs to me is we could not rename Zope 2 or Zope 3
but abbreviate Zope 3 to z3 as much as possible. I'm not sure if
that's
Previously Martijn Faassen wrote:
How to get out of that bind? We could consider renaming Zope 3. Is there
any potential for this?
I doubt many see Zope 3 as a finished product - I get the impression
everyone is using it as a grab bag if tools to build their own
applications. It certainly has
Previously Jim Fulton wrote:
3. I think the word Zope should refer to both the application
currently called Zope 2 and the Zope ecosystem, depending on context,
although I'm also fine with coming up with another name as long as it
doesn't imply obsolescence. :)
I am somehow reminder of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08.04.2009 18:09 Uhr, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
To stir things up: I would like to suggest renumbering the next Zope 2
release to Zope 4. That reflects the large refactoring that is being
done to clean up the codebase and fully eggify Zope.
I see no reason at all to rename anything.
remeber the days when there was dBase3. and then dBase4 came allong.
technically better but never took off ?
To the day things are either dBase or dBase3 compatible.
A simmilar situation we have with Zope.
Like dBase, Zope is a base technology. How its
Andreas Jung wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08.04.2009 18:09 Uhr, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
To stir things up: I would like to suggest renumbering the next Zope 2
release to Zope 4. That reflects the large refactoring that is being
done to clean up the codebase and
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 17:40, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com wrote:
How to get out of that bind? We could consider renaming Zope 3.
Assuming Zope 3 The Application Server is still going to exist, I
think it should be renamed (I suggested Blue Bream). But I have so far
seen no indication
Baiju M wrote:
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Shane Hathaway sh...@hathawaymix.org wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
If we don't call Zope Framework 4.0, we'll be fine. We should call its
first release 1.0 and there's no implication of a progression.
+1 on calling it Zope Framework 1.0. We
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Shane Hathaway sh...@hathawaymix.org wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
If we don't call Zope Framework 4.0, we'll be fine. We should call its
first release 1.0 and there's no implication of a progression.
+1 on calling it Zope Framework 1.0. We need the people
On Apr 8, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey,
Okay, in the interests of making this discussion go quickly, there has
been enough negative feedback about renaming Zope 2 to think we have
no
realistic chance of renaming it.
We are still stuck with the following perceived
Benji York wrote:
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Shane Hathaway sh...@hathawaymix.org wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
If we don't call Zope Framework 4.0, we'll be fine. We should call its
first release 1.0 and there's no implication of a progression.
+1 on calling it Zope Framework 1.0. We
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 18:47, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com wrote:
Could we just call it Zope Libraries? Whenever I see a description of what
the
Zope Framework is, it says a collection of libraries, so why not just call
it
that?
Well, that's a bad description, it's more than just
On Apr 8, 2009, at 1:12 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Apr 8, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
How to get out of that bind? We could consider renaming Zope 3. Is
there any potential for this?
I think we should call the Zope 3 application ZDecoy. The rest
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
Thanks for posting this. (Thank you too Chris for starting the Zope 4
thread.) Despite the inevitable bike shedding, I think this is a
discussion worth having.
Here are my opinions, which build on the arguments you gave,
discussion type=bikeshed
Tres Seaver wrote:
WRT the Framework name: framework is a misleading name for the
collection of packages salvaged from the new Coke effort: it is
actually a *bunch* of frameworks, in the classic software engineering
sense, along with some pure libraries.
Zope
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Shane Hathaway wrote:
discussion type=bikeshed
Tres Seaver wrote:
WRT the Framework name: framework is a misleading name for the
collection of packages salvaged from the new Coke effort: it is
actually a *bunch* of frameworks, in the classic
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey,
Okay, in the interests of making this discussion go quickly, there has
been enough negative feedback about renaming Zope 2 to think we have no
realistic chance of renaming it.
We are still stuck with the following perceived sequence:
Zope 2, Zope 3
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
To stir things up: I would like to suggest renumbering the next Zope 2
release to Zope 4. That reflects the large refactoring that is being
done to clean up the codebase and fully eggify Zope. There are enough
changes to warrant a new major version bump.
-100 again.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
To stir things up: I would like to suggest renumbering the next Zope 2
release to Zope 4. That reflects the large refactoring that is being
done to clean up the codebase and fully eggify Zope. There
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey,
Okay, in the interests of making this discussion go quickly, there has
been enough negative feedback about renaming Zope 2 to think we have no
realistic chance of renaming it.
We are still
56 matches
Mail list logo
