Re: [Zope-dev] Re: zLOG changes
--On Dienstag, 20. April 2004 17:19 Uhr -0400 Fred Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - when adding LOG = getLogger(...) LOG.info(...) to some modules then the output is only written to the event.log but no longer to stdout (if running in debug mode). Is this change intentional? I'm not sure what the right approach to fixing this is. There are a couple of choices: - In debug mode, add a new handler that dumps to standard output. This is fairly easy to code, but is inflexible. But flexible enough for most usecase. The point is that you want to see the tracebacks on the console during the development phase. Watching the event.log with tail -f is somewhat annoying. - In debug mode, use an alternate or auxillary logging configuration to replace or augment the eventlog configuration section. This is more work up front, but keeps everything flexible. Maybe too much overkill...not sure if one needs an academic solution here... Andreas ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.X Session problems
Hi Chris, On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Chris McDonough wrote: I am using new Transience.py, and my temp_folder is on Sessions.fs ZODB now. I have one problem with it - it does not seems that this way it deletes old expired Sessions. The number of objects grow and grow, and today we reached limit. You reached a disk space limit? Or a number of session objects limit? We have more then 10gb of free disk space. No, I reached the session objects limit. It was set as 1, now I set it as 5, and the counter is going higher every day. I think I have to delete Sessions.fs every night and restart Zope. Is it expected expected behavior when using file storage? I was thinking that only problem of this kind of storage is the need to pack the database sometimes. That was the intent. You did pack and it didn't reduce the file size? Yes, I packed it, size reduced, but the number of session objects still the same. And keep growing. Today morning stats (nobody works now, people still slepping at England): 12567 items are in this transient object container. Data object timeout value in minutes: 20 Maximum number of subobjects: 5 Yesterday there was only 1 session objects. Now, I am packing ZODB: --- before pack --- Database Location: /home/zope/current2/var/Sessions.fs Database Size: 6.2M Transient Object Container at /temp_folder/session_data 12568 items are in this transient object container. --- after pack Database Location: /home/zope/current2/var/Sessions.fs Database Size: 59.8K Transient Object Container at /temp_folder/session_data 12570 items are in this transient object container. -- Alex V. Koval http://www.halogen-dg.com/ http://www.zwarehouse.org/ ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] The bleak Future of Zope?!
Hello, Maik Jablonski of the german speaking Zope Users Group DZUG issued a pretty bleak outlook for the future of Zope. What are your oppinions? Here comes the translation of his oppoion: Maik, what makes you look full of scepticism for the future of Zope? Shortly said, the whole set of stupidities in connection with Zope3. It is a pretty bad state for a project, if it looms for years as the followup project on the horizon but in reality isn't one! I can't believe the fairy tales with the possible migration from Zope2 to Zope3. All the people which have dwelled more or less deeply into the Zope2 world, thereby having had an enormous learning curve and now running applications, will not be able to participate easily on the academic Zope3 train. The technic freaks who modell Zope3 are usually not application developers, which have to build and run working applications for real human users. The artifical not-yet-product Zope3 will sooner or later be distracting development efforts from Zope2 because Zope3 is almost finished. That doesn't look not nice ... Further I see the problem that Zope probably has no real target group as an application server. The enterprise world is dominated by .Net and J2EE. Zope in its current form without a sensible documentation in conjunction with the drama about the english zope book doesn't help changing this. Scripting has arrived in the Java world by Groovy, so this isn't a reason for using Zope anymore. In the world of small and medium applications PHP is likely to stay, because it leads much faster to results. Zope is to complicated for this. For the CMS stuff we have Plone, but this is rather suited for handling some simplistic documents for the intranet rather then a nice internet representation. This is because customizing Plone isn't trivial at all and nobody want's to run web pages with standard underwear blue. OK, the colours can be changed easily, other features via CSS, etc. ... Maybe I'm simply sick of moving along within web browsers and the file system without a sensible IDE and documentation. Regards, Maik ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] When should one call Connection.sync?
I am using ZODB 3.2 in a twisted based web application. I have read that I need to call sync to keep the connection up to date. When exactly should I call sync? Are there any drawbacks with calling it immediately after getting a connection, like this: # for each http request. connection = db.open() # (a DB instance) connection.setLocalTransaction() connection.sync() # start using the ZODB here. # if something needs to be committed connection.getTransaction().commit() ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [patch] More secure cookie crumbler?
Shane Hathaway wrote: Even with unbreakable encryption of credentials after login, you still send the username and password in the clear at login time, and sniffers can reuse the session ID with ease. You really shouldn't tell the Plone users they will be safer with a session token, because they won't. Well, they will. You go from being able to sniff from ANY request, to only being able to sniff from the login request. Session ID re-use will only work if the legitimately logged in user doesn't use the session they've just logged in to. If they do, both the legitimate and illegitimate session will get bumped out. Now, dependent on your point of view and the sensitivity of your data, that may only be a small improvement, but it IS an improvement... Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] The bleak Future of Zope?!
Martin Kretschmar wrote: Maik Jablonski of the german speaking Zope Users Group DZUG issued a pretty bleak outlook for the future of Zope. What are your oppinions? Maik's having a bad day, he'll get over it ;-) Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: zLOG changes
Andreas Jung wrote: - In debug mode, use an alternate or auxillary logging configuration to replace or augment the eventlog configuration section. This is more work up front, but keeps everything flexible. Maybe too much overkill...not sure if one needs an academic solution here... I'm guessing there is some kind of log-to-console logger already? If so, why not just add that in zope.conf and comment it out when you move to production? That seems both flexible and sensible to me, and with no work :-) BTW, is there a logger in Python 2.3/Zope 2.7 that sends log entries via email? If not, I'll port MailingLogger to Zope 2.7 and see if I can make it play nice :-) cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] The bleak Future of Zope?!
Well, Maik has more than a bad day. In fact, he is rather right about the points he raises! I have been developing for Zope for about half a year now and it took considerable effort to get anything going. I have experience with filesystem-based Zope 2 products, Plone and Archteypes and a bit of Zope 3. While Z3 looks promising it is not likely to just take over Z2. It is too much different. The biggest problem, however is the lack of (any useful) documentation and sample code. Without the help of the mailing lists you cannot get far with Zope. With respect to CMS, Plone archetypes are too simplistic for complex data/document types and customisation takes too much effort. Do not get me wrong! I decided to use Zope because it fits my bill and I am willing to invest more time in Python/Zope/Plone, because I like it a lot (*). But be aware of J2EE/.Net, especially after the Sun/M$ agreement. I have been a Java developer for years and I know that there are a lot of (commercial) parties to develop whatever anyone needs, if you pay them. The same must be true of .Net. A good IDE for Python/Zope with support for application patterns, UML, etc. would be a good thing. Real application development is a serious business and good tools are essential, just like deadlines and milestones for new releases and up-to-date documentation. I am currently using Eclipse with PyDev, but it has a long way to go until it offers the wealth of support that Eclipse offers for Java. Boa Constructor is a good try, too. This is meant to encourage everybody, I am an optimist ;-) Beware of the pragmatic commercial developers. (*) fyi http://zope.org/Members/drapmeyer/spyse Chris Withers wrote: Martin Kretschmar wrote: Maik Jablonski of the german speaking Zope Users Group DZUG issued a pretty bleak outlook for the future of Zope. What are your oppinions? Maik's having a bad day, he'll get over it ;-) Chris -- Dr. Andre P. Meyerhttp://home.hccnet.nl/a.meyer/ TNO FEL Command Control and Simulation, http://www.fel.tno.nl/div2/ Delft Cooperation on Intelligent Systems, http://www.decis.nl/ ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: The bleak Future of Zope?!
Martin Kretschmar wrote: Shortly said, the whole set of stupidities in connection with Zope3. It is a pretty bad state for a project, if it looms for years as the followup project on the horizon but in reality isn't one! It looks like the classical strategic mistake: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog69.html Funny thing though is that Joel uses Netscape/Mozilla as an example on how not to do it. I think that the jury is still out as to who won the browser war. So it ain't ower until the fat lady sings. I can't believe the fairy tales with the possible migration from Zope2 to Zope3. Me neither. The best we can hope is that it will be like copying a Z2 product to a folder, and then move stuff out into configuration files instead. Perhaps it can be somewhat automated, but I see a lot of subtleties that can only be handled manually. On the possitive side, a lot of the Z3 technologies are allready back-ported to to Z2. So Z3 will not be completely alien. But if Z3 succeds in picking up more developers, as Z3 development gets a lot easier and more Pythonic, it can very well be better in the long run. All the people which have dwelled more or less deeply into the Zope2 world, thereby having had an enormous learning curve and now running applications, will not be able to participate easily on the academic Zope3 train. The technic freaks who modell Zope3 are usually not application developers, which have to build and run working applications for real human users. The artifical not-yet-product Zope3 will sooner or later be distracting development efforts from Zope2 because Zope3 is almost finished. That doesn't look not nice ... It is the single biggest concern about Zopes future. That is correct. And not one to be taken lightly. But the biggest problem with Z2 has allways been the steep learning curve. Relatively few developers has been able to work on it. The time lost for Z2 developers transfering to Z3 could quickly be offset by new developers due to an easier development model. Also, Python is flexible. We will probably see a transition phase, where products are developed for Z2/Z3 compatibility. That way we *can* get a smooth transition. Further I see the problem that Zope probably has no real target group as an application server. Zope has allways had that problem. But actually it fits very nicely into the cms market. Especially with Plone as the base. Many companies has their own home rolled cms system. They will be replaced by open solutions due to scale of economics. It is simply to costly to compete against something like Plone. Zope/Plone has a sweet spot that actually fits most customers out there. You can make solutions for a fraction of the cost of what a typical Java bases system costs. Many Java based cms solutions are too costly timewise to implement solutions in for many customers. The enterprise world is dominated by .Net and J2EE. Zope in its current form without a sensible documentation in conjunction with the drama about the english zope book doesn't help changing this. Scripting has arrived in the Java world by Groovy, so this isn't a reason for using Zope anymore. Scripting was never the reason for Zope. The absolutely brilliant object publishing model was. Well that and Python. It might be Groovy, but Python it ain't! The things you can do in Zope you simply cannot do as well in other systems. The solution fits the problem space *very* well. In the world of small and medium applications PHP is likely to stay, because it leads much faster to results. Zope is to complicated for this. The world of small/medium applications will dissapear! The bigger systems like Plone can do anything out of the box that the small hand-built systems needs to have hand coded. Why on earth should somebody set up a PHP server and do a lot of hand coding, when they can set up a Plone server that does it all for them? PHP based systems tends to be monolithic blocks. Something like PHPBoard is a good example. Setting it up is rather complicated. And using several on the same site is also difficult. I Zope you can have a discussion board in each end every folder, just by adding it through a web based interface. Furthermore smaller systems will grow larger. Then they will get growing problems too. Developers allready using bigger systems will find the future simpler. For the CMS stuff we have Plone, but this is rather suited for handling some simplistic documents for the intranet rather then a nice internet representation. This is because customizing Plone isn't trivial at all and nobody want's to run web pages with standard underwear blue. OK, the colours can be changed easily, other features via CSS, etc. ... That is hard for any CMS system. What system does it better? It isn't a simple task to create a skinning system that flexible. Actually I find Plone to be very well factored for a system of that complexity. There isn't much in Plone
Re: [Zope-dev] The bleak Future of Zope?!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 21 April 2004 11:53, Andre Meyer is believed to have said: Well, Maik has more than a bad day. In fact, he is rather right about the points he raises! I have been developing for Zope for about half a year now and it took considerable effort to get anything going. I have experience with filesystem-based Zope 2 products, Plone and Archteypes and a bit of Zope 3. While Z3 looks promising it is not likely to just take over Z2. It is too much different. The biggest problem, however is the lack of (any useful) documentation and sample code. Without the help of the mailing lists you cannot get far with Zope. I don't agree. I am new to zope. So I tried zope2 first, because plone had a lot of appeal. I got discouraged very quickly, because zope2 is so very grown over a time it's hard to join later. Zope3 seemed quite well documented and I had no problems going on on my own. ( There is a tutorial, a cookbook, and an online apidoc ) I can say nothing however to migrating apps from zope2 to zope3. With respect to CMS, Plone archetypes are too simplistic for complex data/document types and customisation takes too much effort. Do not get me wrong! I decided to use Zope because it fits my bill and I am willing to invest more time in Python/Zope/Plone, because I like it a lot (*). But be aware of J2EE/.Net, especially after the Sun/M$ agreement. I have been a Java developer for years and I know that there are a lot of (commercial) parties to develop whatever anyone needs, if you pay them. The same must be true of .Net. Right, I am developing Java applications for a living as well. I have been focused on consultancy work recently ( writing tech-specifications and projectmanaging for a really big publishing company ) and I think Zope / python has a good potential for use in commercial apps/systems. I have had to work with some premium CMSes and some of them really suck. I'd swap it gladly. A good IDE for Python/Zope with support for application patterns, UML, etc. would be a good thing. Real application development is a serious business and good tools are essential, just like deadlines and milestones for new releases and up-to-date documentation. I am currently using Eclipse with PyDev, but it has a long way to go until it offers the wealth of support that Eclipse offers for Java. Boa Constructor is a good try, too. I tried Eclipse, but its so slow. This is meant to encourage everybody, I am an optimist ;-) Beware of the pragmatic commercial developers. As to be pragmatic: It is easier and faster to write a functionality in python than in java and thus cheaper. I say : beware of the Marketing. We had to migrate a banking system from a corba/c++ system to J2EE during the last phase of the project, because the customer had heard of 'this J thing everyone is using'. (*) fyi http://zope.org/Members/drapmeyer/spyse Chris Withers wrote: Martin Kretschmar wrote: Maik Jablonski of the german speaking Zope Users Group DZUG issued a pretty bleak outlook for the future of Zope. What are your oppinions? Maik's having a bad day, he'll get over it ;-) Chris - -- Eckart Hertzler Senior Consultant G+J Electronic Media Services GmbH 20457 Hamburg Tel. : +49 40 3703 7591 Fax : +49 40 3703 - 5792 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAhlKLxvP4sHhhP/gRAne0AKCXehtMYeMzx1s0N0o+1ph11As/4gCg2Y62 MigAPYapLhAii0HGbEdz84A= =E63J -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] The bleak Future of Zope?!
is there an URL for the original? Martin Kretschmar wrote: Hello, Maik Jablonski of the german speaking Zope Users Group DZUG issued a pretty bleak outlook for the future of Zope. What are your oppinions? Here comes the translation of his oppoion: smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Zope 2.6 branch closed for bugfixes?
Tres Seaver wrote: Chris, I would call the 2.6 branch closed except for serious security bugs; please don't check in new features or minor bugfixes there. How come? and was this announced anywhere? I don't see what harm applying minor bugfixes to any release branch could do... Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] The bleak Future of Zope?!
my nz$ 0.02 worth - is the future bleak? nothing seems to awry to me, this copy you pasted has no basis for argument - why even bother pasting it - for some upgrades of zope 2.* I need to rethink some rather understandable aspects of my zope products - each one appears to be a migration to z3. - if my next upgrade == z3 and I need to spend more than a few days fixing my products, then perhaps something went wrong. But I don't see that happening yet, but then, by being limited to production quality releases, I just read the news items and browse zope-dev. On 21/04/2004, at 7:58 PM, Martin Kretschmar wrote: Hello, Maik Jablonski of the german speaking Zope Users Group DZUG issued a pretty bleak outlook for the future of Zope. What are your oppinions? Here comes the translation of his oppoion: Maik, what makes you look full of scepticism for the future of Zope? Shortly said, the whole set of stupidities in connection with Zope3. It is a pretty bad state for a project, if it looms for years as the followup project on the horizon but in reality isn't one! I can't believe the fairy tales with the possible migration from Zope2 to Zope3. All the people which have dwelled more or less deeply into the Zope2 world, thereby having had an enormous learning curve and now running applications, will not be able to participate easily on the academic Zope3 train. The technic freaks who modell Zope3 are usually not application developers, which have to build and run working applications for real human users. The artifical not-yet-product Zope3 will sooner or later be distracting development efforts from Zope2 because Zope3 is almost finished. That doesn't look not nice ... Further I see the problem that Zope probably has no real target group as an application server. The enterprise world is dominated by .Net and J2EE. Zope in its current form without a sensible documentation in conjunction with the drama about the english zope book doesn't help changing this. Scripting has arrived in the Java world by Groovy, so this isn't a reason for using Zope anymore. In the world of small and medium applications PHP is likely to stay, because it leads much faster to results. Zope is to complicated for this. For the CMS stuff we have Plone, but this is rather suited for handling some simplistic documents for the intranet rather then a nice internet representation. This is because customizing Plone isn't trivial at all and nobody want's to run web pages with standard underwear blue. OK, the colours can be changed easily, other features via CSS, etc. ... Maybe I'm simply sick of moving along within web browsers and the file system without a sensible IDE and documentation. Regards, Maik ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ) ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: The bleak Future of Zope?
Personally, I think Zope3 has a great future, and will pick up a much larger community than Zope2 ever did, because it's better designed and better documented. In general, the people who stand to gain immediately (or pretty soon) from Zope3 are enthusiasts; newcomers; and ZC. However, if the process of moving away from Zope2 is not managed very carefully and slowly, the people who stand to lose are companies that already rely on Zope2. I agree that the solution is probably to allow the community more control over the release cycle, web site, and repository. We could follow various other models from elsewhere in the OSS world, and see what happens. I believe that ZC's apparent reticence on this is because they are (understandably) interested in preserving control over their brand, which overlaps rather largely with the software. What would be helpful is a definitive statement from ZC as to whether they would consider relinquishing some of their control over Zope 2. Perhaps, instead of a code fork, we could have a brand fork, with a different website, a different name, and a different release schedule (think Fedora?) Seb Andreas Jung wrote: From my own prospective as developer I would like to see that Z2 development over the next two or three years continues because there is too much Z2 legacy code in the world and not everyone is interested in following the migration path for Z3. To be honest I doubt that large custom applications can be migrated with a justifiable amount of time and money (just because they are completely bound to Z2 components and its architecture). To clarify my standpoint: I am not an opponent of Zope3 but Zope 3 does not convince me in the current stage and gives me little attraction for the projects I am working onit just can not compete with Zope 2 if you are building large-scale systems at this time. Andreas ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: The bleak Future of Zope?
Hi, the points I snipped I agree with and/or have no new input for. On Wednesday 21 April 2004 05:36, Andreas Jung wrote: The reasons for this situation from my prospective: - Lots of Z2 people are working now on Plone projects. Plone currently attracts more people because the important and interesting projects are done there. Paul Everits goal to grow Zope by 10 times might happen through Plone, not through Zope itself Yes. Note that there are plans emerging for Plone 3 for Zope 3. I hope that we will be able to redirect some of the development power of Plone towards Zope with Plone 3. And I think that will be possible. Zope 2 has too many abstraction layers: Zope -- CMF -- Plone, CPS, ... That means that if I develop a product for Zope, it cannot be automatically used in CMF/Plone optimally anymore. With Zope 3 we will get a fresh start on this. - The Z2 development is badly managed. The 2.7 release has been delayed for one year or so. Yes, I hope we will be able to manage releases in the community for Zope 3. Jim encouraged this by asking me to do the current Zope 3 releases (so I hope I will be able to give away this responsibility to someone else, when the Zope 3 community grows -- it will need someone who is constantly involved in the real world and sees the needs for releases clearer than I do). - ZC is currently the bottleneck for Z2. As stated before, I think that can be changed, if enough interest is shown in the community. But I think the Zope community lacks strong leaders; too many people are only interested in making money with it without realizing that their future depends on the general success and development of Zope. Maiks words: Z3 is attractive as an academic project to try out things and concepts but it does not attract people in the current stage...maybe in two years from now but currently most people are attracted by working and usable solutions like Plone. And that in itself is the problem. Making money is most important, securing the future is second. People don't care about the latter. :-( - The zope.org community site is a mess. Lots of outstanding problems are not fixed, the performance of the site is more than poor (it takes ages to login, it takes ages to load pages), usability (e.g. when you perform a software release) is bad. Nobody is willing to contribute. ZC agreed to change zope.org to Plone so more community members can contribute. But noone has stepped up; that's very sad. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: The bleak Future of Zope?!
Martin, Maik, Andreas, and others, I see two issues being raised in this thread: 1. Maik disagrees with the design philosophy behind Zope3 (the Component Architecture) and the place Zope3 wants to position itself at in the future. As a Zope developer who has spent the last two years both developing *with* Zope2 and developing Zope3 itself, I obviously have a different point of view about the technical part. Whether Zope3 will be success in its market niche is yet to be determined. If you fight, you can win the war; if you give up now, you've already lost the war. Since this is more a philosophical issue, or even a matter of taste, I am not going to argue too much about it. I find the component architecture superior to anything we have seen before and we will soon have proofs that it is capable of industrial strength applications. Most other developers who are involved into development with or of CMF (such as the leading Plone developers) seem to share that point of view; in fact, we all can't hardly wait for Zope3 to hit stable. 2. Especially Andreas expressed his worries about the current release policy in Zope 2 and its future regarding maintainance and support. I have to say that I share some of his skepticism regarding Zope 2. I personally have never fully understood ZC's reasons for the release roadmap as it is. I might not see the big picture, but I know I would have done it differently. I've always tried to make that clear in the past. Coming up with harsh criticism now is not very fair, I think, especially when you're as in involved as Maik or Andreas. Zope 2 development has opened for the community a lot in the past. While people were to extend Zope2 with more or less useful features (seemed to me that it was more than fixing bugs), all the administrative stuff got stuck with ZC. Did anyone from the community ever volunteer helping with the releases or the CVS administration? In this matter, btw, the future painted in Zope3 is brighter: more community involvement, more innovations coming from the community and more administrative tasks taken up by volunteers. Not that I'm not suggesting that more help is needed... Philipp ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] Proposal: Rename zope package
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tres Seaver wrote: | | Jim Fulton wrote: | ... | I've gotten enough negative feedback to z, that I've added an | alternative 4 | to the proposal: | | 4. Rename the Zope package to Zope2 and provide a legacy Zope | package | | -1, for reasons I've stated before. This is Zope 3's problem; we | *can't* inflict the pain on the large set of installed production | servers to favor cleanliness for the one only installed by | arrow-backed pioneers. We would be *much* better off with the status | quo ante than with such a solution. | | Tres. - -1 on alternative 4. This lurker is with Tres. This is a Z3 challenge. I wonder how many part-time Zope 2 admins will be happy about making this change and having to retest code they've inherited from some contract developer. As a developer, this change is attractive. However, I can't see it as feasible for the real world. Troy - -- And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it. Isaiah 40.5 0xD3BDCA53 http://tjf.us/public.asc -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFAhmbnAykmMtO9ylMRAkcRAJwP4FBU5oosHN/3rESobu2ow7XUiwCff0Gv yzgfB6TI6uOmDFA3Z3zKn78= =saog -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: The bleak Future of Zope?
Stephan Richter wrote: Hi, As stated before, I think that can be changed, if enough interest is shown in the community. But I think the Zope community lacks strong leaders; too many people are only interested in making money with it without realizing that their future depends on the general success and development of Zope. That is not nessecarily mutually exclusive. But taking leadership is only possible if it is easy. I doubt that Plone would have been a succes if it had followed the Zope release schedule ... And that in itself is the problem. Making money is most important, securing the future is second. People don't care about the latter. :-( Offcourse we do. But we need to focus on a few areas. We cannot all develop frameworks. Personally I serve my customers, and write content types for Plone. That is a full-time job right there. I do take pride in making them well tested, and properly documented. I don't really see how I can do any more than that. - The zope.org community site is a mess. Lots of outstanding problems are not fixed, the performance of the site is more than poor (it takes ages to login, it takes ages to load pages), Stuff like performance is probably better off left to zc. It is very hardware specific, so on-site developers has a clear advantage. usability (e.g. when you perform a software release) is bad. Yes! Nobody is willing to contribute. ZC agreed to change zope.org to Plone so more community members can contribute. Well. The switch wasn't very well made. It has become more difficult to use. (Why do we need the default state to be private? Or perhaps trusted Members could get the reviewer role locally so that it would be easier to use.) But noone has stepped up; that's very sad. Stepped up to do what? How do you step up? To me it seems like you will get the ability to have endless comitee meetings about how it should work. Not the power to just change stuff. Even if it breaks sometimes. I have enough of that kind of work from my customers thank you ;-) regards Max M ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: Zope 2.6 branch closed for bugfixes?
Chris Withers wrote: Tres Seaver wrote: Chris, I would call the 2.6 branch closed except for serious security bugs; please don't check in new features or minor bugfixes there. How come? and was this announced anywhere? See the last topic in: http://dev.zope.org/CVS/ZopeDevelopmentProcess I don't see what harm applying minor bugfixes to any release branch could do... - It is a well-established principle of software engineering that the most likely source of new bugs in mature code is fixes for old ones. - People who are still running 2.6 in production are demonstrably risk-averse (and often for good reason). Adding non-critical fixes to the mature branch increases the amount of risk involved in upgrading production sites, which they typically won't do except to close major security vulnerabilities. - If something comes up which forces us to make a 2.6.5 release, keeping the diff from 2.6.4 as small as possible is a real goal for the release manager, who must communicate with the risk-averse sysadmins. - As a parallel, think about the kinds of changes you want to see *today* to the 2.2 Linux kernel: if you are still running sites on 2.2, you definitely don't want *any* non-essential fixes being backported there. Tres. -- === Tres Seaver[EMAIL PROTECTED] Zope Corporation Zope Dealers http://www.zope.com ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: [Zope-dev] zope 2.7.0: no tracebacks produced
Thanks! I have found the error_log object in the ZMI too.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Willi Langenberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 6:41 PM
To: Mika, David P (Research)
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] zope 2.7.0: no tracebacks produced
According to Mika, David P (Research):
I am making a big upgrade and moving my products from 2.3.1 on HP-UX
to 2.7.0 on windows 2000 and can't get zope to produce any tracebacks
when it encounters errors. I've checked all the log files and monitor
stdout
to no avail. All I get is a brief html message with error type and value
and
instructions to check the error log.
from Zope-2.7.0/lib/python/ZPublisher/HTTPResponse.py:
# Enable APPEND_TRACEBACKS to make Zope append tracebacks like it used to,
# but a better solution is to make standard_error_message display
error_tb.
APPEND_TRACEBACKS = 0
\wlang{}
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Fax: +43/1/31336/9207
Zentrum fuer Informatikdienste, Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien, Austria
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: Proposal: Rename zope package
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: | Troy Farrell wrote: | | -1 on alternative 4. This lurker is with Tres. This is a Z3 | challenge. I wonder how many part-time Zope 2 admins will be happy | about making this change and having to retest code they've inherited | from some contract developer. | | Why would they switch to Zope 2.8 if not for the component architecture? | So, if you just inherited some code for maintainance, this will | unlikely break your program. In fact, it won't even break your program | when the rename is effective, since we'll keep a facade Zope package | around. Philipp, not everyone follows well-planned, ideal upgrade practices. Often, upgrades come when they can be had, and even more frequently when there is a security hole and the fix is only available for the latest version or two. I'm remembering this: http://securityfocus.com/bid/9400/ This was the occasion for my upgrade to 2.7, which proved to be a learning experience. Fortunately, I used a test instance for my upgrade :) Deprecation errors are nice, but usually admins take one of two approaches to them, neither of which is ideal: 1) Ignore them since everything seems to work alright 2) See the apocalypse horsemen headed their direction - this results in URGENT!!! HELP ME PLAESE RIGHT NOW email on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list. This will cause many a shock when the occasion for upgrade to 2.9 comes around. ~ At 2 A.M. As for moving to CA, I'm trying it right now. I'm working through buddydemo and trying to wrap my head around the verbosity that is Zope 3. My plan is that starting mid-May, all new projects will be on Zope 3 sans the backward compatibility stuffs. My personal preference is for option 1 or option 3. Troy -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFAhnF8AykmMtO9ylMRAh31AJ9EmIAtssh9k/CiNFGGMMQRxK0WSACeIRms 1iq79Ikc982nJvp/X15oETE= =5Kuy -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] The bleak Future of Zope?
On Wednesday 21 April 2004 03:58, Martin Kretschmar wrote: Maik Jablonski of the german speaking Zope Users Group DZUG issued a pretty bleak outlook for the future of Zope. What are your oppinions? I think Chris is right to say that Maik had a bad day. If not, and if he is serious about his uninformed opinions as stated in this E-mail, then I feel the necessity to reply to his points. Here comes the translation of his oppoion: Maik, what makes you look full of scepticism for the future of Zope? Shortly said, the whole set of stupidities in connection with Zope3. It is a pretty bad state for a project, if it looms for years as the followup project on the horizon but in reality isn't one! The reason it took so long is that there are a lot of people that take, but do not give back. While the Zope community has thousand's of developers, the Zope 3 community never exceeded a core team of 10 people at any given time. That is very sad!!! People use Zope 2 and rest on it. Many do not realize that if you want to stay in the technology business, you have to innovate and Zope 3 is just that, Zope 2 would eventually fall apart due to bloating and inflexibility. Zope 3 anticipates this and tries to fix the deficiencies. BTW, the TODO list for Zope X3.0 is less than 80 lines long at this point. I can't believe the fairy tales with the possible migration from Zope2 to Zope3. Well, if you have not studied the proposed solutions, what can you expect? I personally never believed in a compatibility layer for Zope 2 in Zope 3, which was thought possible early on and I made no secret out of it. However, the current approach is very simple and therefore realistic. Starting with Zope 2.8 or 2.9, you will be able to start developing applications that will run in Zope 2 and 3. This will provide a migration path to many. BTW, if you think that we do not address your needs correctly, don't waste time complaining, but use it to create **constructive** criticism on Zope3-Dev and participate. All the people which have dwelled more or less deeply into the Zope2 world, thereby having had an enormous learning curve and now running applications, will not be able to participate easily on the academic Zope3 train. academic, huh? To talk about myself, just because I am a Ph.D. student does not mean I am academic (in the sense you mean it here). I often consider myself as an engineer in science. Furthermore, I have developed many apps for end-users before starting to work on Zope 3. Many of the large contributions I made were motivated by my application development experiences. The current I18n and L10n support, for example, would not be what it is without my real-world doings. The technic freaks who modell Zope3 are usually not application developers, which have to build and run working applications for real human users. First off, freak has an extremely negative connotation in English, other than in German. The German freak is translated as geek to English. Now to some of the other developers: Jim (Fulton) -- Over the last years I have been several times in F12g and had the chance to get to know him better. Jim has wealth of experience that is hard to match. If he cannot think about a good solution or thinks about his approach as too abstract, he always talks to other ZC developers (who do work on applications all the time) for advise and values it highly. He is a true engineer! Steve -- He has built the first commercial application for Zope 3. In fact, a lot of his contributions came from a time were he readied Zope 3 for this application. Marius, Albertas, Bjorn, Victorija -- They develop for Zope 3 because they do projects with it. Enough said! Gary (Poster) -- He uses Zope 3 already in Zope 2 (FrankenZope) for a customer project. Python Labs (Fred, Barry, Guido, Tim and Jeremy) -- Clearly they have all had a lot of application development experience. Shane, Tres and other ZC developers -- Most of the ZC developers these days work on customer projects, so they have plenty of real-world, end-user experience. Martijn Faassen -- All I say is Silva. Phillipp (von Weitershausen) -- He also builds applications and his contributions were often very practical ones. Sidnei -- Well, he built the second Zope 3 app that actually makes use of the strengths of Zope 3 in a way that is not possible in Zope 2. So I see no reason to believe that we are a too abstract- or academic-thinking set of developers. **However**, we all need to be academic, because otherwise we would not be able to build a stable and well-performing framework for other people to work with and build on! Abstract thinking and development is a pre-requisite for a good, solid foundation. The artifical not-yet-product Zope3 will sooner or later be distracting development efforts from Zope2 because Zope3 is almost finished. That doesn't look not nice ... That will happen, of course, as
Re: [Zope-dev] The bleak Future of Zope?
On Wednesday 21 April 2004 03:58, Martin Kretschmar wrote: Maik Jablonski of the german speaking Zope Users Group DZUG issued a pretty bleak outlook for the future of Zope. What are your oppinions? To not make the previous mail too long, here my general opinion. 1. Maik likes to do things the quick and dirty way. See Epoz and Mailboxer. That works well for small and personal projects, but is not the answer for large projects. If Zope 2 or 3 would have been built this way, they would have already fallen apart. Abstract thinking is a required for framework development. Epoz has been totally redesigned (Kupu) in a more abstract way and works very well for end users in Silva...and it is easily adjustable and extensible. For Mailboxer I can only say that he should have leveraged the development power behind Mailman and develop a nice UI on top of it as I had demonstrated with some code a year earlier. This suggests to me he is either (1) not a team player or (2) technically not good enough to integrate. It is much, much harder to play nice with other projects than starting your own. I have done this mistake myself often enough (back then I was not technically good enough ;-). 2. Maik is is frustrated with the releases of both Zope 2 and Zope 3, including their merging. First off, I do not develop Zope 2 and I am not involved there, so I have no qualified opinion. However, it is always easy to complain about ZC and push all the responsibility to them. I bet you that ZC would allow a 3rd party to do releases, if they show interest, knowledge and wisdom. However, people just keep complaining and do nothing. The situation is even more obvious with the Zope book. All the community has to do is to give a particular part/chapter/section to a couple of people for maintenance. But oh wait, that would need someone to manage this effort and *that* would be just too much work. For Zope 3 however, I can give a very well-informed opinion. Philipp privately pointed out to me that people exected Zope 3 technologies to arrive earlier in Zope 2, such as the CA and principals maybe. This was not desirable in several ways. First, the API was not stable and Zope 2 as a mature software would have suffered from the ever changing API. Next, there was still a lot of restructuring going on that would have caused interruptions in Zope 2. Third, none of the code was optimized and dog slow, nothing someone wanted to use for a large site. Finally, we just had no bandwidth for it! Who was to support the Zope 3 in Zope 2? At the end it would have been Jim and it distract him from finishing Zope 3. Concerning the release schedule, ZC has little to do with that for Zope 3. In fact, I have been release manager since this summer and I am responsible for the release schedule and packages. However, I decided not to release often, since again we do not have bandwidth to support the milestones. Since the CVS is as stable as any milestone release (we have tests for everything), releases are less important and it is much easier and less time consuming to support the current HEAD, which you can just download via the Web. However, we are getting the first alpha out by the end of the month. Hopefully, by end of May we will have finished the X3.0 to-do list and will release the beta. At this point the API will freeze and application developers are encouraged to have look at it. I have more to say, but I the E-mail would become too long. Overall, I think Maik's predictions and scepticism is fairly uninformed from a Zope 3 perspective. He has never seriously participated in writing code/documentation and/or contributing to discussions. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Zope Book, was Re: [Zope-dev] The bleak Future of Zope?
Stephan Richter wrote: On Wednesday 21 April 2004 03:58, Martin Kretschmar wrote: -- snip -- 2. Maik is is frustrated with the releases of both Zope 2 and Zope 3, including their merging. -- snip -- The situation is even more obvious with the Zope book. All the community has to do is to give a particular part/chapter/section to a couple of people for maintenance. But oh wait, that would need someone to manage this effort and *that* would be just too much work. -- snip -- Hmph, as one of the people that works on the Zope Book I feel a little stung by a comment like this one. While its true that a 2.7 Edition of the Zope book is overdue, I still think that the 2.6 Edition was both quite a step forward and still largely applicable for 2.7 Zopes That being said, I wonder if there are people interested to make an effort for a 2.7 Edition of the Zope book? cheers, peter. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] The bleak Future of Zope?!
On Wednesday 21 April 2004 05:52 am, Eckart Hertzler wrote: I don't agree. I am new to zope. So I tried zope2 first, because plone had a lot of appeal. I got discouraged very quickly, because zope2 is so very grown over a time it's hard to join later. Zope3 seemed quite well documented and I had no problems going on on my own. ( There is a tutorial, a cookbook, and an online apidoc ) I can say nothing however to migrating apps from zope2 to zope3. I'm really looking forward to Zope 3, and I'm thinking about migrating to it this Summer. I've been developing an application, which has taken about two years, largely because developing in the Zope 2 Framework model is like beating your head against the wall constantly. That's probably because I'm writing a fundamentally complex web application which I need to have a lot of large-scale control over. I'm not writing in an environment where a slightly-customized ZMI or even a collection of new Zope objects will quite do the job. I'm writing a system which gives end-users (NOT CS experts) a lot of control over their environment. And there are fundamental user-interface changes involved. I also have to do this in my copious free time, as I'm not commercially employed to do this work (maybe someday, but not now). So in those two years, I've probably had the equivalent of 2 months of full-time work. For somebody dealing with that, the constant pressure to adapt to a changing platform and the myriad interfaces that break when you do, and the unwillingness to document these problems because that's too old get really frustrating. The lack of formally defined interfaces makes it very hard to deal with this situation -- it's not easy to mix-and-match the new parts you need with the old parts you haven't been able to upgrade yet. In short -- Zope 2 is TOO LABOR INTENSIVE. Mostly because it's TOO COMPLEX and TOO MONOLITHIC. During the development phase of my project, I've had to upgrade Zope THREE times, and EACH one REQUIRED A MAJOR RE-WRITE on my part. That makes it very difficult to concentrate on forward momentum. I've missed my own deadlines, and had to admit that I simply can't deliver the product on anything like the schedule I originally was trying for. And this 3 steps forward, 2 steps back problem of dealing with a changing, poorly documented, and often buggy platform is part of the reason. The promise of Zope 3 is that it is following Python's TOOLBOX model, and making it easier to separate out the parts you need into separate interfaceable components. This will make life vastly easier for large-scale projects which don't follow the typical quick and dirty Zope site model. Or so I hope. ;-) I don't understand everything else they're doing with it, and I've had frustrations with Zope 3, but in the long run (which I care about -- I expect my application, or a later version of it, to be in use in 15-20 years, so I'm not just concerned with first to market), I think it will be easier to keep up with. I understand that my situation is probably unusual, but I do want to speak out to say that there is interest in Zope 3, and I personally expect to be using it before 2005. Cheers, Terry -- Terry Hancock ( hancock at anansispaceworks.com ) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.anansispaceworks.com ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: The bleak Future of Zope?!
Martin Kretschmar wrote: Hello, Maik Jablonski of the german speaking Zope Users Group DZUG issued a pretty bleak outlook for the future of Zope. What are your oppinions? Here comes the translation of his oppoion: Maik, what makes you look full of scepticism for the future of Zope? Shortly said, the whole set of stupidities in connection with Zope3. Well, thanks for the kind words. Makes me want to work really hard to satisfy your concerns. It is a pretty bad state for a project, if it looms for years as the followup project on the horizon but in reality isn't one! I can't believe the fairy tales with the possible migration from Zope2 to Zope3. I'm sorry you feel that way. We've tried to be very honest about the road map. Zope 3 has taken much longer than I expected. I made a conscious decision a few months ago to actually slow it down, Why? Two reasons: - We have Zope 2. While not perfect, Zope 2 is a great system. We make out living with Zope 2. The vast majority of ZC people work in Zope 2, not Zope 3. - We want Zope 3 to be as solid and clean as it can be. We have an opportunity, before a stable release, to change things readily. That will be much harder once it's in production. All the people which have dwelled more or less deeply into the Zope2 world, thereby having had an enormous learning curve and now running applications, This enormous learning curve is one of the main reasons we created Zope 3. will not be able to participate easily on the academic Zope3 train. The technic freaks who modell Zope3 are usually not application developers, which have to build and run working applications for real human users. That's both insulting and incorrect. Many of the leaders of the Zope 2 community are involved in Zope 3 and using it. These people are application developers. The artifical not-yet-product Zope3 will sooner or later be distracting development efforts from Zope2 because Zope3 is almost finished. That doesn't look not nice ... Any new project distracts development from other projects. That's natural and healthy? Has development on Zope 2 stopped? No. ZC still puts more work into Zope 2 than into Zope 3. I expect that to continue for some time. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: The bleak Future of Zope?!
Max M wrote: Martin Kretschmar wrote: Shortly said, the whole set of stupidities in connection with Zope3. It is a pretty bad state for a project, if it looms for years as the followup project on the horizon but in reality isn't one! It looks like the classical strategic mistake: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog69.html Well, I don't agree with this assessment for Zope 3. We needed the freedom to work oput new ideas and patterns. Trying to use existing code would have been a huge distraction. I think that the result proves that we were right. The beauty of our approach is that, having built what we've built, we'll be able to take advantage of that code in the current platform. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: The bleak Future of Zope?
Stephan Richter wrote: Concerning the release schedule, ZC has little to do with that for Zope 3. In fact, I have been release manager since this summer and I am responsible for the release schedule and packages. However, I decided not to release often, since again we do not have bandwidth to support the milestones. Since the CVS is as stable as any milestone release (we have tests for everything), releases are less important and it is much easier and less time consuming to support the current HEAD, which you can just download via the Web. My only problem is that it is difficult to be an occasional developer in Z3 on Windows. I normally don't develop in c. So I don't have Visual Studion installed. I have downloaded the milestones and tried them out. But then I read about this and that *geddon, and think well guess I should wait for another version before I try it again. I quickly feel out of sync in Z3. If there was some way to have a Binary core that didn't change very often, and a Python only part that I could upload from cvs/subversion to be up to date, it would be much easier to use a few hours here and there to try out stuff in Z3. Or perhaps an automated nightly Windows build. I believe that Chris Withers is testing Z3 nightly on Windows. Right? Would it be difficult to have that available as a download somewhere? It seems that zipping and uploading the test directory is enough. Being able to grab the builds seems more important than the releases. However, we are getting the first alpha out by the end of the month. Hopefully, by end of May we will have finished the X3.0 to-do list and will release the beta. At this point the API will freeze and application developers are encouraged to have look at it. Great. regards Max M ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: The bleak Future of Zope?!
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Martin, Maik, Andreas, and others, I see two issues being raised in this thread: 2. Especially Andreas expressed his worries about the current release policy in Zope 2 and its future regarding maintainance and support. I have to say that I share some of his skepticism regarding Zope 2. I personally have never fully understood ZC's reasons for the release roadmap as it is. I might not see the big picture, but I know I would have done it differently. I've always tried to make that clear in the past. I'm surprised to read this. Could you be more specific about your concerns? Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: Zope Book, was Re: [Zope-dev] The bleak Future of Zope?
On Wednesday 21 April 2004 10:18, Peter Sabaini wrote: The situation is even more obvious with the Zope book. All the community has to do is to give a particular part/chapter/section to a couple of people for maintenance. But oh wait, that would need someone to manage this effort and *that* would be just too much work. Hmph, as one of the people that works on the Zope Book I feel a little stung by a comment like this one. While its true that a 2.7 Edition of the Zope book is overdue, I still think that the 2.6 Edition was both quite a step forward and still largely applicable for 2.7 Zopes I was really addressing the people who just sit idle. I know from experience that the few who do something always get their beating... I did not mean to do that at all. But since people are complaining about the quality of the book, it must not have enough volunteers. That being said, I wonder if there are people interested to make an effort for a 2.7 Edition of the Zope book? Probably: A lot of people want it, few people want to help. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: The bleak Future of Zope?!
will not be able to participate easily on the academic Zope3 train. The technic freaks who modell Zope3 are usually not application developers, which have to build and run working applications for real human users. That's both insulting and incorrect. Many of the leaders of the Zope 2 community are involved in Zope 3 and using it. These people are application developers. Jim, we native german speakers tend to be much more direct and phrase dings more bluntly the you americans do. In german I read Maik's statement as a strong opinion but never as an insult. Since I am the one who asked Mike to speak up I would feel bad if it created any bad feelings. Robert ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: The bleak Future of Zope?
On Wednesday 21 April 2004 10:40, Max M wrote: I normally don't develop in c. So I don't have Visual Studion installed. You can also use cygwin. I have downloaded the milestones and tried them out. But then I read about this and that *geddon, and think well guess I should wait for another version before I try it again. right. I quickly feel out of sync in Z3. yes. If there was some way to have a Binary core that didn't change very often, and a Python only part that I could upload from cvs/subversion to be up to date, it would be much easier to use a few hours here and there to try out stuff in Z3. There is little change in the C files. It is very rare. Or perhaps an automated nightly Windows build. We have talked about it many times before, but simply lack the bandwidth. Maybe you could provide this for Cygwin? Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: The bleak Future of Zope?
On Wednesday 21 April 2004 09:40 am, Max M wrote: Stephan Richter wrote: However, we are getting the first alpha out by the end of the month. Hopefully, by end of May we will have finished the X3.0 to-do list and will release the beta. At this point the API will freeze and application developers are encouraged to have look at it. Well, I couldn't find the antecedent for that quote, but it's really good news! I'm deeply embroiled in organizing for an upcoming space conference on Memorial Day Weekend (May 27-31, http://www.isdc2004.org ), so I'm not able to do *any* programming for about a month, but I will definitely be checking X3.0 out in June. That's probably when I'll be available to look at the Schema package and see if I can contribute usefully to it, as well. Cheers, Terry -- Terry Hancock ( hancock at anansispaceworks.com ) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.anansispaceworks.com ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: The bleak Future of Zope?!
Jim Fulton wrote: I'm surprised to read this. Could you be more specific about your concerns? Did you read Andreas Jung's mail? He was pretty specific, but I had to hunt around as in my mailreader his reply had broken the thread. Regards, Martijn ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: The bleak Future of Zope?!
Hello, Jim, we native german speakers tend to be much more direct and phrase dings more bluntly the you americans do. In german I read Maik's statement as a strong opinion but never as an insult. Since I am the one who asked Mike to speak up I would feel bad if it created any bad feelings. Robert Robert is 100% right! Mikes oppion contains no real insults at all, not even really bad phrases, at least not in the original german version. German insults look quite different, and we tend to recognize them when we read them. In this sense I was somewhat careless in my instant translation and I want to apologize for it. Martin ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: Zope Book, was Re: [Zope-dev] The bleak Future of Zope?
On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 04:18:17PM +0200, Peter Sabaini wrote: Stephan Richter wrote: On Wednesday 21 April 2004 03:58, Martin Kretschmar wrote: -- snip -- 2. Maik is is frustrated with the releases of both Zope 2 and Zope 3, including their merging. -- snip -- The situation is even more obvious with the Zope book. All the community has to do is to give a particular part/chapter/section to a couple of people for maintenance. But oh wait, that would need someone to manage this effort and *that* would be just too much work. -- snip -- Hmph, as one of the people that works on the Zope Book I feel a little stung by a comment like this one. Same here. Put up or shut up, whiners. Chris McDonough put a lot of time into editing and coordinating the 2.6 edition. If he hadn't put out a formal call for contributors, and organized the whole thing, it wouldn't have happened at all. I don't hear anybody volunteering to take over that job. -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.X Session problems
What do you have the transient object timeout set for? On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 02:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Chris, On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Chris McDonough wrote: I am using new Transience.py, and my temp_folder is on Sessions.fs ZODB now. I have one problem with it - it does not seems that this way it deletes old expired Sessions. The number of objects grow and grow, and today we reached limit. You reached a disk space limit? Or a number of session objects limit? We have more then 10gb of free disk space. No, I reached the session objects limit. It was set as 1, now I set it as 5, and the counter is going higher every day. I think I have to delete Sessions.fs every night and restart Zope. Is it expected expected behavior when using file storage? I was thinking that only problem of this kind of storage is the need to pack the database sometimes. That was the intent. You did pack and it didn't reduce the file size? Yes, I packed it, size reduced, but the number of session objects still the same. And keep growing. Today morning stats (nobody works now, people still slepping at England): 12567 items are in this transient object container. Data object timeout value in minutes: 20 Maximum number of subobjects: 5 Yesterday there was only 1 session objects. Now, I am packing ZODB: --- before pack --- Database Location: /home/zope/current2/var/Sessions.fs Database Size: 6.2M Transient Object Container at /temp_folder/session_data 12568 items are in this transient object container. --- after pack Database Location: /home/zope/current2/var/Sessions.fs Database Size: 59.8K Transient Object Container at /temp_folder/session_data 12570 items are in this transient object container. -- Alex V. Koval http://www.halogen-dg.com/ http://www.zwarehouse.org/ ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: The bleak Future of Zope?
Andreas Jung wrote: Some remarks from my side as a Zope2 core developer on this issue: The Z2 community and development is currently at a bad point: - very few people are contributing to the Z2 in terms of new code and bug fixes (see the tons of open bugs in the collector) In the last year, 37 people make 4215 checkins to the Zope 2 repository. This doesn't seem to shabby to me. Here's the breakdown by year: Year checkins people 2002 7090 33 2003 5276 34 2004 1103 24 # First 3 1/2 months There is some decline, as one would expect in a mature product. These numbers don't include CMF and Plone. I'd like to see a lot more contributions. But this still looks like a pretty healthy development community to me. - very few people are willing to contribute to documentation No one likes to write documentation. I think we're making some progress in this area in Zope 3 that I think will feed back to Zope 2. The reasons for this situation from my prospective: - Lots of Z2 people are working now on Plone projects. Plone currently attracts more people because the important and interesting projects are done there. Paul Everits goal to grow Zope by 10 times might happen through Plone, not through Zope itself Is that bad? - The Z2 development is badly managed. The 2.7 release has been delayed for one year or so. You keep saying that, but you don't offer to help. We begged for help with the Zope 2.7 release. AFAIK, we got very little, so it fell to us. - ZC is currently the bottleneck for Z2. No, we're not. And it has nothing to do with how much time we spend on releases. Any time someone wants to help with or lead the release process, we'd be thrilled to support them in doing so. If the community wants more frequent releases, they need to help. It sounds like people are trying out amd giving feedback on the head. That's great! I'd really like to see 2.8 get out soon. ... - The zope.org community site is a mess. Lots of outstanding problems are not fixed, the performance of the site is more than poor (it takes ages to login, it takes ages to load pages), usability (e.g. when you perform a software release) is bad. Yes, that's a bad situation. We (meaning the Zope community) need to do something about this. Sigh. ... We need for Zope2 - a better and open management for Z2 releases: Please be specific. Better in what way? Open in what way? In what way have we not been open? ... If ZC can not provide the resources in terms of time and manpower, the coordination and release management should be given to the community. I am sure that more are willing to contribute more than at the moment. Great! Where are they? The community led the release of 2.6. I think that worked pretty well. We asked for, but didn't get volunteers for the Zope 2.7 release. If anyone wants to help with or lead the 2.8 release, I'd *love* to hear from them. - a clear statement from ZC to the future of Zope 2. We've said many times, and I'll say again, that Zope 2 will be with us for some time. We won't stop working on Zope 2 until Zope 3 is done (meaning does everything that Zope 2 does) and there is a clean migration path. We don't know, at this point, what form that path will take. We just haven't figured it out yet. Our short term strategy is to narrow the gap between Zope 2 and Zope 3, by having them share more and more software over time. This is what the Zope 2.8 and Zope 2.9 releases will be about, in addition to community-developed enhancements, of course. Zope 2.8 and Zope 2.9 are considered as a migration path for Zope 3 Yes where the Z2 support should be dropped after these releases No. We've *never* said that. I fully expect Zope 2 releases after Zope 2.9. ... From my own prospective as developer I would like to see that Z2 development over the next two or three years continues because there is too much Z2 legacy code in the world Of course. No one is suggesting that we stop development of Zope 2. ... To be honest I doubt that large custom applications can be migrated with a justifiable amount of time and money (just because they are completely bound to Z2 components and its architecture). I don't know. You may be right, but I don't think so. We'll have to wait and see. To clarify my standpoint: I am not an opponent of Zope3 but Zope 3 does not convince me in the current stage and gives me little attraction for the projects I am working onit just can not compete with Zope 2 if you are building large-scale systems at this time. Absolutely! Nor should it try to compete at this time. If you want the same level of functionality that's in Zope 2, then use Zope 2. Zope 3 isn't there yet. OTOH, Zope 3 does have some advantages for some applications. That's why people are building production apps with it now, even though there isn't a production release. That's why we're working very hard to make a production-quality release of what we have now, even though it
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: Proposal: Rename zope package
Troy Farrell wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: | Troy Farrell wrote: | | -1 on alternative 4. This lurker is with Tres. This is a Z3 | challenge. I wonder how many part-time Zope 2 admins will be happy | about making this change and having to retest code they've inherited | from some contract developer. | | Why would they switch to Zope 2.8 if not for the component architecture? | So, if you just inherited some code for maintainance, this will | unlikely break your program. In fact, it won't even break your program | when the rename is effective, since we'll keep a facade Zope package | around. Philipp, not everyone follows well-planned, ideal upgrade practices. There's only so much we can do for people who don't. Often, upgrades come when they can be had, and even more frequently when there is a security hole and the fix is only available for the latest version or two. I'm remembering this: http://securityfocus.com/bid/9400/ This was the occasion for my upgrade to 2.7, which proved to be a learning experience. Fortunately, I used a test instance for my upgrade :) I think your main point is people who skip updates. Perhaps, I should have suggested keeping the legacy Zope package longer? Deprecation errors are nice, but usually admins take one of two Warning, not errors approaches to them, neither of which is ideal: 1) Ignore them since everything seems to work alright 2) See the apocalypse horsemen headed their direction - this results in URGENT!!! HELP ME PLAESE RIGHT NOW email on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list. This will cause many a shock when the occasion for upgrade to 2.9 comes around. ~ At 2 A.M. Would you feel better if we kept the legacy support available longer? The deprecation warnings are a way for people to find out when somethings coming. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: The bleak Future of Zope?!
Martin Kretschmar wrote: Maik Jablonski of the german speaking Zope Users Group DZUG issued a pretty bleak outlook for the future of Zope. What are your oppinions? Hi to all, I'm not able to respond to all mails in this thread due to a trashed shoulder (very unlucky cyclocross-crash last week), but I'm feeling the need to make some simple remarks. 1) Chris is right: Yes, I've had a bad day...;) 2) My initial mail wasn't intended for zope-dev. So I'm a little bit suprised that it made it to this list. If anyone feels offended (esp. Jim), I'm very sorry, but if I want to complain about Zope2/3 on this list, I would use other words. The initial mail (written in german) was written in a state of fear (not anger). The translation (and maybe my mail itself) didn't transport my fear about the future of Zope very well I guess. 3) To say it clearly: I would have never started the German Zope User Group two years ago if I were not totally convinced of Zope (the technology the community). Bringing up a community in Germany (with several big conferences, etc.) was a lot of work (believe me), so I don't feel as a usual freerider who only complains but does not give something back to the community. But my resources are limited as well, so I can't take additional tasks as documentation, release-management, etc.pp... If this means I'm not allowed to say anything critical about these points then I'm very, very sorry making any remarks... 4) Stephan, you're right, I did not study Zope3 (and the zope3-dev-list) very well. My initial approach to Zope3 ended with the impression: huh, complicated stuff, but I don't have time to work it out in the moment! Then I've talked to many people who said similar things about their first experience with Zope3 (maybe I've talked to the wrong people, than this is my fault, sorry again). So I came up with the impression: yeah, Zope3 is cool, but complicated (stated as 'academic' in my mail)! (at least if you don't have the time to work things out by diving into the source). And if you run several mission critial applications you don't have time to look into this kind of new stuff. But you're right, Stephan: If you want to stay in technology business, you have to invent (read: improve by a complete redesign) the wheel many times. So I don't think that Zope3 is useless for the future of Zope. 5) But there's some kind of a bad impression in my mind (maybe it is without any foundation, than all things are in best state): Zope2 isn't maintained very well anymore due to limited ressources (bug fixes, documentation, see mail from Andreas), but Zope3 isn't production ready at all. So if you talk to people making the decisions in the IT-business they say: Zope2 seems to be a dead horse, Zope3 is just a child which learns to run... Let's settle our business on more approved technologies like Java / Net (or even PHP...;)). We can't wait anymore... This kind of frustrating impression made me writing the mail about the future of Zope, because I'm in love with Zope and not Java, Net or PHP... [[[6) Just a personal note to Stephan: You're right again about the quickdirty design of some of my products (esp. Epoz, I have simply no knowledge about JavaScript at all (and I don't like it), but Epoz seems to do a good job for many people until Kupu is finished). My job (read: strength) is custom-application-development (talking to customers and reading their minds, developing prototypes to track down the issues the customer meant and didn't told me and didn't dream of etc.pp., developing securing maintaing web-applications which need to work in an environment with 20.000 students 2000 office-workers etc.), not application-framework-design-nor-development, so my products are just some wired by-products of my daily work. About MailBoxer: If you think MailBoxer is just another mailinglistmanager (like mailman) you didn't get the idea of it... MailBoxer is a lightweight mailinglist-framework (!, yes I've done some kind of framework, it can be done better, but it solves my problems this way) which is built on the power of Zope to achieve some things you can hardly achieve with Mailman (at least I wasn't able to to). So I've reinvented the wheel once more to solve some of my application-needs...]]] Hope this made things a little bit clearer... I didn't want to attack ZC / Zope3-devs / the community or anyone else. I'm just fearing that we miss the train for Zope2 AND Zope3 in the moment... if you don't think so, I'm fine...:) Keep zoped, Maik ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: Zope Book, was Re: [Zope-dev] The bleak Future of Zope?
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 10:18, Peter Sabaini wrote: That being said, I wonder if there are people interested to make an effort for a 2.7 Edition of the Zope book? I am. I think Paul is too. It won't be nearly as much work as 2.5 - 2.6. Let's just do it. Wanna pick chapters? I'll get the new book set up on Zope.org (another BT book) and send the link to whomever is interested. - C ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: The bleak Future of Zope?!
robert rottermann wrote: will not be able to participate easily on the academic Zope3 train. The technic freaks who modell Zope3 are usually not application developers, which have to build and run working applications for real human users. That's both insulting and incorrect. Many of the leaders of the Zope 2 community are involved in Zope 3 and using it. These people are application developers. Jim, we native german speakers tend to be much more direct and phrase dings more bluntly the you americans do. In german I read Maik's statement as a strong opinion but never as an insult. Since I am the one who asked Mike to speak up I would feel bad if it created any bad feelings. Bad feeling don't last long with me. I couldn't be an open-source developer if they did. :/ Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: The bleak Future of Zope?
On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 10:41:27AM -0400, Casey Duncan wrote: I agree that bugs deserve more attention. We need to have more bug days. I meant to suggest a date last week, but I got diverted. How would people feel about next Thursday, April 29? +1 -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: The bleak Future of Zope?
Casey Duncan wrote: On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 11:36:31 +0200 Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - very few people are willing to contribute to documentation On a bright note, I think zopewiki.org could change that. It *greatly* lowers the bar on contributing substantive docs for Zope. I would implore all of you (as in you, the reader of this message, yes you!) to go there and write something, now! You know something that has not been written down yet, so go write it down! You can even do so anonymously. That's a great points. Wikis *can* definitely really speed up the documentation process. Of course wikis can also die, but the low bar towards contribution is really really helpful. Just take a look at www.wikipedia.org for an extremely impressive example of what is possible. Regards, Martijn ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: The bleak Future of Zope?!
Martijn Faassen wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: I'm surprised to read this. Could you be more specific about your concerns? Did you read Andreas Jung's mail? He was pretty specific, but I had to hunt around as in my mailreader his reply had broken the thread. I was responding to Philipp, not Andreas. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: The bleak Future of Zope?
Jamie Heilman wrote: .. Oh, and about Maik's comment that ZC is the bottleneck in Z2 dev--Jim, I think it was Andreas you might not agree with Maik, but hidden security bugs over a year old aren't something the rest of the community can do anything about. Are you suggesting that we hid them? As soon as we found out about them, we mobilized the whole company to work on them. This was a big deal that we put a lot of effort into over a fairly short time. How is this evidence that we were a bottleneck? Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] On a constructive note: Zope 2.8
Hey there, I understand from: http://dev.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Projects/Zope2.8/MilestonePlan Zope 2.8 is now planned for june. If Zope 2.8 is indeed released by june this could fit fairly well with my own (also delayed :) plans for using this facility in Silva. The obvious area I could try to contribute is in integrating Zope 3 interfaces in Zope 2. Have interfaces stabilized enough to start this work, or should I wait until next month (may is indicated on the planning). What steps need to be taken concretely before such integration is considered completed? I know the package rename discussion rename (zope to z) in Zope 3 is related to this. Regards, Martijn ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: Zope Book, was Re: [Zope-dev] The bleak Future of Zope?
Chris McDonough wrote: On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 10:18, Peter Sabaini wrote: That being said, I wonder if there are people interested to make an effort for a 2.7 Edition of the Zope book? I am. I think Paul is too. It won't be nearly as much work as 2.5 - 2.6. Let's just do it. Wanna pick chapters? I'll get the new book set up on Zope.org (another BT book) and send the link to whomever is interested. Ok then... I think the following issues would deserve attention: * Installing chapter: I'm working on it and hope to finish soon (no really this time!) * Maintaining chapter update * Creating Basic Zope Applications: I've been wanting to extend and incorporate Jon Whiteners version but never got around to it * Using Zope Page Templates: judging by the comments there seem to be some trouble spots there * Reference: IMHO one of the trickier things, especially for the API Ref. because one would first have to decide what constitutes the API and what is simply Zope core... * A chapter TOC: it would be great if we could have an inter-chapter table of contents; would greatly help navigation esp. in longer chapters -- I seem to recall that someone once mentioned working on such a feature -- Paul maybe? * Lots of weeding out comments resp. incorporating answers * Generating PDFs Anything else? - peter. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: The bleak Future of Zope?
Jim Fulton wrote: Oh, and about Maik's comment that ZC is the bottleneck in Z2 dev--Jim, I think it was Andreas Ah, you're right, oh well apart from who said it... you might not agree with Maik, but hidden security bugs over a year old aren't something the rest of the community can do anything about. Are you suggesting that we hid them? As soon as we found out about them, we mobilized the whole company to work on them. This was a big deal that we put a lot of effort into over a fairly short time. How is this evidence that we were a bottleneck? I think you're confusing the past with the present. There is at least 1 hidden security bug thats been sitting in the queue for a year *right now*. I'm not talking about the stuff that was fixed in the last audit. As for why they are hidden, well thats, the [EMAIL PROTECTED] collector that encourages it, and as ZC runs the collector that puts the ball squarely in ZC's court. -- Jamie Heilman http://audible.transient.net/~jamie/ You came all this way, without saying squat, and now you're trying to tell me a '56 Chevy can beat a '47 Buick in a dead quarter mile? I liked you better when you weren't saying squat kid. -Buddy ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Call for Zope Book volunteers (was Re: Zope Book, was Re: [Zope-dev] The bleak Future of Zope?)
I've set up a development BackTalk sandbox for the 2.7 edition of the Zope book at http://zope.org/Documentation/Books/ZopeBook/2_7Edition. Currently it's just an exact copy of the 2.6 Edition book (comments and all). I think the plan should be for people to: 1. take ownership of a chapter or two 2. address all the comments in the chapter and get rid of comments in places you've addressed. 3. update any material that is wrong wrt to differences between 2.6 and 2.7. The prize for taking ownership and updating two complete chapters is your name as a coauthor on the front page (as before ;-). Another thing to do is to incorporate some of John Whitener's changes the lost chapter referenced all over the place within book comments. I wonder if he's still around. At some point in the future, we can backport some of the changes to the 2.6 book if someone wants to take on that responsibility. It's advisable to use external editor to make the changes or to maybe use FTP to get sandboxed local copies of the book and make changes reuploading them as necessary. I've lost track of whether FTP access is possible or not on Zope.org at this point, however. Does anyone know? I've tried a few ports but nothing. Also, Zope.org is so slow for each request when you're logged in that we may need to move development to another system. As a data point, I've been waiting 4 minutes for Z.org to save a Wiki page... still waiting. Hilarious. Admittedly, it takes a unique brand of apathy to ignore this, but I've got an excuse. I'm waiting for the Zope.org steering committee to solve it! Chuckle. In the meantime, what slowness.. I don't know what you're talking about.. I have given Manager role in the entirety of the 2.7 edition book to both Peter and Paul. Anyone else who wants to contribute, please let me know which chapter(s) you'd like to sign up to revise and I will provide you access as necessary. I've set up a project wiki for the project at http://zope.org/Members/mcdonc/ZB_project where people can get a sense of which chapters are still available. It may not be available yet... still waiting for it to save. I will take ownership of the Installation chapter for now (I will probably take ownership of some other chapters, but I'll start small...) - C ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: Zope Book, was Re: [Zope-dev] The bleak Future of Zope?
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 14:10, Peter Sabaini wrote: Chris McDonough wrote: On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 10:18, Peter Sabaini wrote: Ok then... I think the following issues would deserve attention: * Installing chapter: I'm working on it and hope to finish soon (no really this time!) Cool, I'll pick another chapter then! * Maintaining chapter update I'll pick that one. ;-) * Creating Basic Zope Applications: I've been wanting to extend and incorporate Jon Whiteners version but never got around to it This is important. * Using Zope Page Templates: judging by the comments there seem to be some trouble spots there Yup. It's ripe for attention like the attention you gave to Maintaining. ;-) * Reference: IMHO one of the trickier things, especially for the API Ref. because one would first have to decide what constitutes the API and what is simply Zope core... I think we should continue to ignore the API ref except for addressing specific corrective comments made against it. The API ref is terrible, but unless someone has a spare few weeks on their hands to go through Zope and define APIs, that's the best we're going to do. * A chapter TOC: it would be great if we could have an inter-chapter table of contents; would greatly help navigation esp. in longer chapters -- I seem to recall that someone once mentioned working on such a feature -- Paul maybe? Yes, it's in BackTalk CVS. I just need to convince ZC to install the newest BackTalk. * Lots of weeding out comments resp. incorporating answers Yeah.. * Generating PDFs Anything else? Backporting changes to the 2.6 edition, although I think this should be low priority! - C ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: Call for Zope Book volunteers (was Re: Zope Book, was Re: [Zope-dev] The bleak Future of Zope?)
Sigh. I think I stressed Zope.org to its breaking point by creating a Wiki page. It's down. - C On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 14:13, Chris McDonough wrote: I've set up a development BackTalk sandbox for the 2.7 edition of the Zope book at http://zope.org/Documentation/Books/ZopeBook/2_7Edition. Currently it's just an exact copy of the 2.6 Edition book (comments and all). I think the plan should be for people to: 1. take ownership of a chapter or two 2. address all the comments in the chapter and get rid of comments in places you've addressed. 3. update any material that is wrong wrt to differences between 2.6 and 2.7. The prize for taking ownership and updating two complete chapters is your name as a coauthor on the front page (as before ;-). Another thing to do is to incorporate some of John Whitener's changes the lost chapter referenced all over the place within book comments. I wonder if he's still around. At some point in the future, we can backport some of the changes to the 2.6 book if someone wants to take on that responsibility. It's advisable to use external editor to make the changes or to maybe use FTP to get sandboxed local copies of the book and make changes reuploading them as necessary. I've lost track of whether FTP access is possible or not on Zope.org at this point, however. Does anyone know? I've tried a few ports but nothing. Also, Zope.org is so slow for each request when you're logged in that we may need to move development to another system. As a data point, I've been waiting 4 minutes for Z.org to save a Wiki page... still waiting. Hilarious. Admittedly, it takes a unique brand of apathy to ignore this, but I've got an excuse. I'm waiting for the Zope.org steering committee to solve it! Chuckle. In the meantime, what slowness.. I don't know what you're talking about.. I have given Manager role in the entirety of the 2.7 edition book to both Peter and Paul. Anyone else who wants to contribute, please let me know which chapter(s) you'd like to sign up to revise and I will provide you access as necessary. I've set up a project wiki for the project at http://zope.org/Members/mcdonc/ZB_project where people can get a sense of which chapters are still available. It may not be available yet... still waiting for it to save. I will take ownership of the Installation chapter for now (I will probably take ownership of some other chapters, but I'll start small...) - C ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ) ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: The bleak Future of Zope?
--On Mittwoch, 21. April 2004 10:41 Uhr -0400 Casey Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On a bright note, I think zopewiki.org could change that. It *greatly* lowers the bar on contributing substantive docs for Zope. I would implore all of you (as in you, the reader of this message, yes you!) to go there and write something, now! You know something that has not been written down yet, so go write it down! You can even do so anonymously. Yeah...just had a look a zopewiki.org it seems to be a great place. I wonder why we were not able to built a such place there were it would belong to: zope.org? Andreas ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: Call for Zope Book volunteers (was Re: Zope Book, was Re: [Zope-dev] The bleak Future of Zope?)
Chris McDonough wrote: I've set up a development BackTalk sandbox for the 2.7 edition of the Zope book at http://zope.org/Documentation/Books/ZopeBook/2_7Edition. Currently it's just an exact copy of the 2.6 Edition book (comments and all). I think the plan should be for people to: 1. take ownership of a chapter or two 2. address all the comments in the chapter and get rid of comments in places you've addressed. 3. update any material that is wrong wrt to differences between 2.6 and 2.7. The prize for taking ownership and updating two complete chapters is your name as a coauthor on the front page (as before ;-). Erm, there is no front page... you need to realise the truth: its you who is the front page /lame-matrix-quoting Another thing to do is to incorporate some of John Whitener's changes the lost chapter referenced all over the place within book comments. I wonder if he's still around. Yes he is, I talked about this to him some time ago. In light of this its maybe best if I do the incorporating At some point in the future, we can backport some of the changes to the 2.6 book if someone wants to take on that responsibility. It's advisable to use external editor to make the changes or to maybe use FTP to get sandboxed local copies of the book and make changes reuploading them as necessary. I've lost track of whether FTP access is possible or not on Zope.org at this point, however. Does anyone know? I've tried a few ports but nothing. Hm, we should make the sources available somewhere. Once Zope.org starts working again. Also, Zope.org is so slow for each request when you're logged in that we may need to move development to another system. As a data point, I've been waiting 4 minutes for Z.org to save a Wiki page... still waiting. Hilarious. Admittedly, it takes a unique brand of apathy to ignore this, but I've got an excuse. I'm waiting for the Zope.org steering committee to solve it! Chuckle. In the meantime, what slowness.. I don't know what you're talking about.. Nono not slow at all merely... andante. Or broken down. Or something. I have given Manager role in the entirety of the 2.7 edition book to both Peter and Paul. Anyone else who wants to contribute, please let me know which chapter(s) you'd like to sign up to revise and I will provide you access as necessary. I've set up a project wiki for the project at http://zope.org/Members/mcdonc/ZB_project where people can get a sense of which chapters are still available. It may not be available yet... still waiting for it to save. I will take ownership of the Installation chapter for now (I will probably take ownership of some other chapters, but I'll start small...) Erm, I'd like the Installation chapter. Already started on it. Really, I promise :-) opening-a-bottle-of-favourite-austrian-beer-and-hacking-away'ly peter. - C smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: Call for Zope Book volunteers (was Re: Zope Book, was Re: [Zope-dev] The bleak Future of Zope?)
On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 02:13:30PM -0400, Chris McDonough wrote: I've set up a development BackTalk sandbox for the 2.7 edition of the Zope book at http://zope.org/Documentation/Books/ZopeBook/2_7Edition. Currently it's just an exact copy of the 2.6 Edition book (comments and all). Also, Zope.org is so slow for each request when you're logged in that we may need to move development to another system. Why don't we use the project CVS at sourceforge? http://sourceforge.net/cvs/?group_id=21038 I see you're an admin there. It doesn't look like it has the 2.6 edition, though. Everything's 2 years old. As a data point, I've been waiting 4 minutes for Z.org to save a Wiki page... still waiting. Hilarious. Admittedly, it takes a unique brand of apathy to ignore this, but I've got an excuse. I'm waiting for the Zope.org steering committee to solve it! Chuckle. In the meantime, what slowness.. I don't know what you're talking about.. They're really crawling now :-( -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Better release management (was Re: Zope 2.6 branch closed for bugfixes?)
Tres Seaver wrote: Chris Withers wrote: Tres Seaver wrote: Chris, I would call the 2.6 branch closed except for serious security bugs; please don't check in new features or minor bugfixes there. How come? and was this announced anywhere? See the last topic in: http://dev.zope.org/CVS/ZopeDevelopmentProcess Hm. This document is (understandably), a bit too ZC-centric. I think we (as in the Zope Community we) need to fix this. I don't see what harm applying minor bugfixes to any release branch could do... - It is a well-established principle of software engineering that the most likely source of new bugs in mature code is fixes for old ones. - People who are still running 2.6 in production are demonstrably risk-averse (and often for good reason). Adding non-critical fixes to the mature branch increases the amount of risk involved in upgrading production sites, which they typically won't do except to close major security vulnerabilities. - If something comes up which forces us to make a 2.6.5 release, keeping the diff from 2.6.4 as small as possible is a real goal for the release manager, who must communicate with the risk-averse sysadmins. - As a parallel, think about the kinds of changes you want to see *today* to the 2.2 Linux kernel: if you are still running sites on 2.2, you definitely don't want *any* non-essential fixes being backported there. These are good points os rational that should go into an updated process doc. Clearly, new features shouldn't go into a bug-fix or maintenance branch. Then the question is: what's a minor bug fix? I don't know who decides that. I think we (community) need to think about a better release-management process that allows the community to make progress without being subject to Zope Corp resource availability. There are two issues: - Volunteers - Process Maybe we can spend some effort trying to improve the process. Perhaps we can discuss some ideas. Here's one: For each release (e.g. 2.8, 2.9) identify a small team of release managers. This team would be responsible for planning and executing the release, including bug-fix releases for that base release. That team could establish the policy for changes to that release, possibly including vetting fixes. It would be great if someone would volunteer to update the process doc. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: Call for Zope Book volunteers (was Re: Zope Book, was Re: [Zope-dev] The bleak Future of Zope?)
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 14:52, Paul Winkler wrote: Why don't we use the project CVS at sourceforge? http://sourceforge.net/cvs/?group_id=21038 I see you're an admin there. I'm +0 on the idea.. if you and Peter are more comfortable with it than using BackTalk, I'll set it up. It's just difficult to keep the BackTalk stuff in sync with CVS; we'd probably need to write a script to do it. It doesn't look like it has the 2.6 edition, though. Everything's 2 years old. Yeah, it's dead dead dead. - C ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: The bleak Future of Zope?
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 20:36:29 +0200 Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --On Mittwoch, 21. April 2004 10:41 Uhr -0400 Casey Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On a bright note, I think zopewiki.org could change that. It *greatly* lowers the bar on contributing substantive docs for Zope. I would implore all of you (as in you, the reader of this message, yes you!) to go there and write something, now! You know something that has not been written down yet, so go write it down! You can even do so anonymously. Yeah...just had a look a zopewiki.org it seems to be a great place. I wonder why we were not able to built a such place there were it would belong to: zope.org? I see no reason why it being or not being on Zope.org is relevant. Its a social thing: Simon decided to do something and had the software, bandwidth and hardware to do it. People have gravitated to it and it looks like it has momentum. I see no downside, Darwin has spoken... ;^) -Casey ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: On a constructive note: Zope 2.8
Martijn Faassen wrote: Hey there, I understand from: http://dev.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Projects/Zope2.8/MilestonePlan Zope 2.8 is now planned for june. This is, of course, a function of people's availability to help. I still need to fix ZClasses, and I need to get through the Zope X3.0 to-do list first. If Zope 2.8 is indeed released by june this could fit fairly well with my own (also delayed :) plans for using this facility in Silva. The obvious area I could try to contribute is in integrating Zope 3 interfaces in Zope 2. Great! Have interfaces stabilized enough to start this work, or should I wait until next month (may is indicated on the planning). I think so. What steps need to be taken concretely before such integration is considered completed? I know the package rename discussion rename (zope to z) in Zope 3 is related to this. That's the big one. I think I'd do this after we do the svn conversion. I *hope* to do that next week. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] The bleak Future of Zope?
Hi! I am not too active on the Zope mailing lists any more because there is not too much time left for it. But this thread asks for a comment. So here it is: First of all, I am not sure if the release policy of Zope 3, and the whole concept of doing a complete rewrite was right or wrong, but at least I don't see a much better alternative. Zope 2 really is getting ugly with its age, so just fixing it wouldn't really be too much fun. What I've been missing in Zope 3 fro years now is a clear focus on a single target. Maybe that is the target of Zope 3: not solve a specific problem like web content management but be a general toolkit for building applications. But I think it would have been a bit easier and much more efficient to start with a rather focussed project, let's say a web groupware system or a CMS, then make sure that things don't get too specific. That way there would have been a list of deliverables to test all the neat new features and concepts against, not just conceptual ideas. As things are now, me and lots of other commercial Zope users never had the resources to really actively participate in Zope 3 because we have to earn our living, and that means applications for the end user if we don't want to charge for the toolkit (which is obviously no option). Well, it's not too late for this. The world still doesn't have the perfect groupware or CMS application, and maybe Zope 3 can be a starting point for it. The problem of Zope 2 is - don't kill me for saying that - Plone. Plone and its foundations in CMF have created a large momentum around a terribly horrible code base. Believe me or not, almost everything gets more complicated with CMF/Plone than with plain Zope. Building a framework on top of a broken framework on top of an ageing framework that is hardly documented isn't a very good idea after all. The shortcomings in Zope 2 itself should have been addressed and fixed, rather than reinventing most of its good parts poorly and keeping the bad parts. Send me a private mail for an extensive list of issues I see ;-) There are quite a few Zope-based CMS solutions out there, and most of them are better than their commercial counterparts in many respects. But if we had managed to start a joint CMS effort (other than CMF, which is a failure by design) two or three years ago things would look even better now. I am currently working on a prototype for a project management solution that is going to be used at SUSE LINUX AG. For that I am using plain Zope. No Archetypes, no Plone, no nothing. Why? Because while Zope 2 is ugly in many respects it still is the most beautiful solution in the Zope (2) community. The original Zope concept is great (having a filesystem-like structure of objects and a web-based frontend to work with it). What I expect from Zope 3 (at least as one part of the project) is a better replacement for Zope 2. The few problems I have always had with Zope 2 haven't been addressed in Plone. They probably have been addressed in Zope 3. I'll have to find out. What I am looking for is a real rapid development tool for web-based (or at least distributed) applications. If Zope 3 doesn't deliver that then other solutions will win the war.** Rapid development can only work if there is an easy-to-understand concept or basic paradigm in a system. Zope 2 is such a system. A lot of things just got ugly because too much bloat was added later. One of the best ideas with the worst implementation was ZClasses. ZClasses would be extremely useful if they really worked as expected. In the web frontend all we'd have needed is a separation between configuration stuff and data (e.g. using two or three tabs instead of one mixing everything). Zope 3 has addressed this issue quite well I guess. What we should work on in the future is development tools for Zope. If I get the stuff I know about Zope 3 right it should be relatively easy to write IDEs (or plugins for existing IDEs) that add wizards, code-completion and lots of introspection, so that I don't have to learn all the API but can explore it while developing. Add an UML-based or UML-inspired graphical frontend to do the application architecture. Finally we need industry-strength performance. The last point is one of the most important ones. Zope 2 has lots of very nice features (like the ZODB, WebDAV access, etc.). Basically everything is there to replace a lot of the most recent Microsoft products (including their planned WinFS DB-like filesystem). We are just lacking the performance (mostly thanks to Python being a beautiful, but not really fast language). That's from my part. Cheers Joachim ** A final question that is mainly aimed at the ZC people: What is the competition you are positioning Zope 3 against? I've never seen an answer to that quite important question ... -- iuveno AG Joachim Werner Wittelsbacherstr. 23b 90475 Nürnberg Tel.: +49 (0) 911 9883 984 E-Mail:
[Zope-dev] Re: zLOG changes
Andreas Jung wrote: --On Dienstag, 20. April 2004 17:19 Uhr -0400 Fred Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - when adding LOG = getLogger(...) LOG.info(...) to some modules then the output is only written to the event.log but no longer to stdout (if running in debug mode). Is this change intentional? I'm not sure what the right approach to fixing this is. There are a couple of choices: - In debug mode, add a new handler that dumps to standard output. This is fairly easy to code, but is inflexible. But flexible enough for most usecase. The point is that you want to see the tracebacks on the console during the development phase. Watching the event.log with tail -f is somewhat annoying. $ zopectl zopectl fg export EVENT_LOG_FILE EVENT_LOG_FILE= /home/tseaver/projects/SFASP/var/zope/bin/runzope -- 2004-04-21T15:37:01 INFO(0) ZServer HTTP server started at Wed Apr 21 15:37:01 2004 Hostname: quervo.zope.com Port: 28080 -- 2004-04-21T15:37:01 INFO(0) ZServer FTP server started at Wed Apr 21 15:37:01 2004 Hostname: quervo.zope.com Port: 28021 -- -- 2004-04-21T15:37:10 INFO(0) Zope Ready to handle requests Why use the console, when you have zopectl? -- === Tres Seaver[EMAIL PROTECTED] Zope Corporation Zope Dealers http://www.zope.com ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: The bleak Future of Zope?
From: Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Year checkins people 2002 7090 33 2003 5276 34 2004 1103 24 # First 3 1/2 months There is some decline, as one would expect in a mature product. Also, I expect most people is like me. I only fix bugs if they bite me, and I understand them OR if there is a bugday, and I understand them and I'm not too stressed out at the office. This means that we need more bugdays. A typical bugday squishes a whole bunch of bugs. They bugs will be harder to squish the more bugdays we have, since the easy one will be squished first, but no matter. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: The bleak Future of Zope?
On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 10:41:27AM -0400, Casey Duncan wrote: I agree that bugs deserve more attention. We need to have more bug days. I meant to suggest a date last week, but I got diverted. How would people feel about next Thursday, April 29? Stop feeling and do it! No, I can't join, because I'll be on my way to Sweden that day. So, then have another bug day a couple of weeks later, maybe I can join then. And so on, and so on... Of course, my greatest contribution usually is closing bugs reports that are really support questions, but hey, it's still squishes! :-) ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Better release management (was Re: Zope 2.6 branch closed for bugfixes?)
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 14:57, Jim Fulton wrote: Here's one: For each release (e.g. 2.8, 2.9) identify a small team of release managers. This team would be responsible for planning and executing the release, including bug-fix releases for that base release. That team could establish the policy for changes to that release, possibly including vetting fixes. Maybe it would be better to start with absolving ZC of the responsibility of creating maintenance releases, with the goal in mind for feature releases to be managed more by the community at some point. In the interim, ZC would still be responsible for setting the timeline and feature set goal for major releases at least for 2.8 and 2.9. I suggest this because ZC has already set the goals for 2.8 and 2.9 and they seem pretty much non-negotiable if we want a Zope 3 transition plan. I suspect ZC will want to maintain control over the featureset and timeline during this (critical) period. Asking for help without providing any direct control or input into the featureset and timeline to the helpers might not work very well: not everyone in the Zope community is as concentrated on the Zope 2 - Zope 3 transition plan as is ZC. I might be wrong about this, I'd be interested to hear any opinions to the contrary. This also mirrors the current Python process where the timeline for maint releases is largely controlled by someone outside the core feature development team (poor Anthony) but the timeline/featureset for feature releases is largely still controlled by the core development team. - C ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: Zope Book, was Re: [Zope-dev] The bleak Future of Zope?
On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 08:10:26PM +0200, Peter Sabaini wrote: * Reference: IMHO one of the trickier things, especially for the API Ref. because one would first have to decide what constitutes the API and what is simply Zope core... The long-term solution, I think, is to fix the API mess itself. Eek. I have a proposal about this here: http://dev.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Proposals/SanitizeHelpSysAndAPIReference ... but I think this will take a while, and I'd rather get the book updated first. I think it's worth hand-massaging the API reference chapter for the 2.7 book and fixing the embedded docs later. Yes, I volunteer to do this :-) * A chapter TOC: it would be great if we could have an inter-chapter table of contents; would greatly help navigation esp. in longer chapters -- I seem to recall that someone once mentioned working on such a feature -- Paul maybe? The book already has an inter-chapter TOC at the beginning ;-) Chris and I worked on an intra-chapter TOC at Pycon. My stuff is in backtalk CVS on sourceforge. http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/backtalk/BackTalk/ Just needs a bit of cleanup and it'll be ready to go. -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: Zope Book, was Re: [Zope-dev] The bleak Future of Zope?
Paul Winkler wrote: On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 08:10:26PM +0200, Peter Sabaini wrote: * Reference: IMHO one of the trickier things, especially for the API Ref. because one would first have to decide what constitutes the API and what is simply Zope core... The long-term solution, I think, is to fix the API mess itself. Eek. I have a proposal about this here: http://dev.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Proposals/SanitizeHelpSysAndAPIReference ... but I think this will take a while, and I'd rather get the book updated first. I think it's worth hand-massaging the API reference chapter for the 2.7 book and fixing the embedded docs later. Yes, I volunteer to do this :-) Brave... and while I'd really like to have a clean API Reference, you are probably right that its more important to get the main book updated first. * A chapter TOC: it would be great if we could have an inter-chapter table of contents; would greatly help navigation esp. in longer chapters -- I seem to recall that someone once mentioned working on such a feature -- Paul maybe? The book already has an inter-chapter TOC at the beginning ;-) Chris and I worked on an intra-chapter TOC at Pycon. My stuff is in backtalk CVS on sourceforge. http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/backtalk/BackTalk/ Just needs a bit of cleanup and it'll be ready to go. Yay! And, judging by the CVS, done pretty straightforward (I was afraid of having to do several parsing passes and such). Cool. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: [Zope-dev] Re: The bleak Future of Zope?
[Max M] Or perhaps an automated nightly Windows build. [Stephan Richter] We have talked about it many times before, but simply lack the bandwidth. Maybe you could provide this for Cygwin? [Max M] Argh ... that wasn't fair. Ok I will try and find some time to look into it. A problem is that every platform has its own unique bag of miserable quirks. Case in point: before we released ZODB 3.3a3 last Friday (which is also the ZODB in the current Zope2 and Zope3 CVS HEADs), I tried to run the ZODB/ZEO test suite under Cygwin on WinXP Pro. Disaster is a fair assessment -- every time the test framework tried to spawn a ZEO process, it died instantly, with a Cygwin-specific message I didn't understand. So you need to be a real platform fan to get a minority platform to work; while I like Cygwin well enough, I rarely use it, and don't have time or interest to pursue it as a hobby. Maybe this is (still) relevant to building Zope under Cygwin, maybe not: http://www.zope.org/Members/dgeorgieff/howto_zope_cvs_on_cygwin/index_html What exactly is needed? I routinely compile Zope2 and Zope3 HEAD on Windows, using MSVC 6. I can't make time to set up a fancy snapshot procedure, but if all people want is (e.g.) a zip file containing the .pyd files, uploading those once a week wouldn't be a significant time sink. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: [Zope-dev] Re: The bleak Future of Zope?
Maybe this is (still) relevant to building Zope under Cygwin, maybe not: http://www.zope.org/Members/dgeorgieff/howto_zope_cvs_on_cygwin/index_ht ml Python release23-maint and Zope 2.7 just builds fine on cygwin with the usual ./configure, make, make install sequence. Regards, Sandor ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
