Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.9 releases for Windows?

[Chris Withers]

Sidnei da Silva wrote:

Basically you need (a properly licensed) VC 7, and Python 2.4.2
installed. Not much else has changed. Unfortunately we haven't gotten
around setting up VC 7 here.


Okay, once I have those two, then what do I do to end up with a binary 
distro for Zope 2.9.1?


cheers,

Chris

--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
   - http://www.simplistix.co.uk

___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
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] ImageFile weirdness?

[Chris Withers]

Jürgen Herrmann wrote:

On Thu, February 23, 2006 09:02, Chris Withers wrote:

1. why the 3 posts?

sorry, there was a long delay before my messages appeared, so i thought
i had problems with my subscription. sorry for the triple post!


Good grief, please check the archives to see where your message is, and 
check your mta logs first...



2. Why on [EMAIL PROTECTED] This should be on zope@zope.org

well, actually i have a specific question about ImageFile internals here,
thought it would fit in best here, if not - sorry.


Okay, lets here it then...


   image = ImageFile('1.gif', '/some/where')
   setattr(self.__class__, '1.gif', image)

3. Arrgh?! What _are_ you trying to do here?

what are you trying to say here?
this is totally unrelated to my actual problem.


Yes, but it's insane code. This will cause lots of problems, and may 
even be behind your "actual problem", which you fail to describe...


Chris

--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
   - http://www.simplistix.co.uk

___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
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] Two visions

[Gary Poster]

On Feb 27, 2006, at 10:37 AM, Jim Fulton wrote:


2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.


Of the two, this seems more believable.  It also may be the best we  
can do.  However, I still don't like it. :-)


   - Zope 5 will be the application server generally known as  
Zope.  It

 will be backward compatible (to the same degree that Zope 2
 releases are currently backward compatible with previous Zope 2
 releases) with Zope 2.


This is reasonable, though I don't love it.


  Zope 5 will similarly be backward
 compatible with Zope 3 applications built on top of the current
 Zope 3 application server.


This gets to the heart of my concern, I guess (see below).


 Note that Zope 5 will leverage Zope 3 technologies to allow a
 variety of configurations, including a Zope 2-like configuration
 with implicit acquisition and through-the-web development, and a
 Zope 3-like configuration that looks a lot like the current Zope
 3 application server.  Maybe, there will be a configuration that
 allows Zope 2 and Zope 3 applications to be combined to a
 significant degree.


You say that one of the advantages of this vision is that "There  
wouldn't be confusion about 2 Zopes".  I'm afraid that's wishful  
thinking, if you want "Zope 5" to include a Zope 3-like web  
configuration.


If you are going to pursue a "Zope Five and the artist formerly known  
as Zope 3" vision, in which Zope is a single clear product, then it  
seems to me that Zope Five should be one or the other, and that's  
what books should describe.  A Zope 2 derivative a la Five makes  
sense, given Zope's history and current users.


More below.


   - Zope 3 will explode. :)

 For many people, Zope 3 is first a collection of technologies
 that can be assembled into a variety of different applications.
 It is second a Zope 2-like application server.  I think that
 these folks aren't really interested in the (Zope 2-like)
 application server.


There are some--Steve Alexander and Canonical, maybe?--who might not  
care about anything beyond choosing among the bag of technologies.   
But I assert with the right of speaking loudly (i.e., I have no way  
to prove this) that there are many who appreciate the "bag of  
components" design who still want to buy into some of the "Zope 3 as  
web application server" story.


For instance, if you mean by "a Zope 2-like application server" "an  
Object File System approach" then I certainly hope you are wrong.   
Even though I don't care much about the Zope 3 ZMI, Zope 3  
encapsulates some web app design decisions I would be loathe to  
lose.  I much prefer the Zope 3 approach to OFS, with __parent__  
rather than acquisition wrappers, a dict interface rather than  
objectValues and friends, and traversal adapters rather than  
__bobo_traverse__ and friends.  If acquisition and all the rest are  
on the way to being replaced within Zope 2/5, then...yay?  but then  
how is it still "Zope 2 backward compatible"?  They seem core to Zope  
2 to me.  And the Zope 3 versions of the decisions inform many Zope 3  
component designs.


Do you mean that the Zope 3 users don't need Zope 2 cataloging and  
indexing?  Surely not, and yet again moving Zope Five to the Zope 3  
catalog seems pretty questionable as "Zope 2 backward compatible".   
And I *much* prefer the zope.index/zope.app.keyref/zope.app.intid  
combo in Zope 3.


Do you mean that Zope 3 users aren't looking for a better designed  
web app than Zope 2, that looks less "long-in-the-tooth" (as I've  
seen blogs call Zope 2), that has more industrial-strength  
flexibility and hard-won design experience than the current crop of  
competitors?  I don't think so: I assert that developers of a certain  
inclination are attracted to the cleanliness of Zope 3 as a web app,  
and not as attracted to the cruft that accumulates in an older, very  
successful project like Zope 2.  Some of those are new Zope  
developers, and some are prominent older Zope developers.


Do you mean that Zope 3 users don't want a robust, battle-hardened  
web publisher like the Zope 2 publisher?  I think many do.


So, I assert that many Zope 3 users, who are in it for the "bag of  
components", *do* want a web application server.  If I'm  
misunderstanding you, then, as Stephan said, maybe you could explain  
more.


(Almost done, but still more below)


 Zope 3 will continue as a project (or projects) for creating
 and refining these technologies.

 (It would probably make sense for this activity to to have some
  name other than "Zope".  On some level, the logical name would
  be "Z" (pronounced "Zed" :).  An argument against "Z" is that
  it would be hard to google for, but Google handles such queries
  quite well and I'd expect that we'd move to the top of Google Z
  search results fairly quickly.  However, I'll leave naming
  decisions to experts. ;)


If this i

Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] Two visions

[Andreas Jung]

--On 27. Februar 2006 21:57:46 -0500 Stephan Richter 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



On Monday 27 February 2006 10:37, Jim Fulton wrote:

1) Our current vision (AFAIK) is that Zope 3 will eventually
   replace Zope 2

2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.


As you probably know already, I am -1 on the second proposal, since it
will  disallow us to finally get rid of the old Zope 2 code.


Like it or not...I agree with Jim's vision will just be the reality. As 
long as we do support Zope 2 we will move more and more Z3 technology into 
Zope 2
which will strengthen Zope 2. I still do not see that Zope 3 will provide 
everything we need to build large-scale applications. Having CMF 2.0 and 
having some future Plone version running on top I don't see that Zope 2 
will fade out.


Andreas



pgpZGgNEj4Wvt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
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: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

[Stephan Richter]

On Monday 27 February 2006 11:06, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> I like the vision of Zope2 becoming a set of extra packages you
> install for Zope3, to get backwards compatibility. Maybe this is the
> same as what you call Zope 5, maybe not.

That would sound good to me!!!

Regards,
Stephan
-- 
Stephan Richter
CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student)
Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
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] Two visions

[Stephan Richter]

On Monday 27 February 2006 10:37, Jim Fulton wrote:
> 1) Our current vision (AFAIK) is that Zope 3 will eventually
>    replace Zope 2
>
> 2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.

As you probably know already, I am -1 on the second proposal, since it will 
disallow us to finally get rid of the old Zope 2 code. Anyways, since I think 
the vision has too littel technical detail for my taste, I would really like 
to see some prototyping before I give my final vote.

I just want to be ensured that I do not have to deal with additional overhead 
(i.e. learn Zope 2 again), but can develop Zope 3 applications as I like it.

Regards,
Stephan
-- 
Stephan Richter
CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student)
Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
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: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Release schedule and deprecation decisions

[Stephan Richter]

On Monday 27 February 2006 09:31, Jim Fulton wrote:
> Thinking about this some more, I propose we should go for
> June and November this year, to give Christian and others more
> time and then do May and November from there on.

+1

This way the Easter sprint could contribute to the release.

Regards,
Stephan
-- 
Stephan Richter
CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student)
Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
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: Two visions

[Paul Winkler]

On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 12:31:33AM +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> I will also note that just because Zope 2 won't die, it doesn't mean we
> shouldn't clean it up. Eventually, Zope should mostly be reusing things
> from Zed.

+sys.maxint

I think this will be the way we get a real forward migration path for an
awful lot of us who are still using Zope 2 today, and expect to continue
doing so. 

We may or may not ever port to "zope 3", whatever that will mean in the
future. More likely we will just incrementally improve and clean up our
applications, just as Zope 2 itself will be getting incrementally better
and cleaner.  We'll have to address deprecation warnings at each
upgrade, but at no point will we be forced to do a complete rewrite.
And along the way, we'll be gradually getting access to more and more
nifty features.

-- 

Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
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: Two visions

[Philipp von Weitershausen]

Jim Fulton wrote:
> 2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.

+1 as already discussed at PyCON.

>- Zope 5 will be the application server generally known as Zope.  It
>  will be backward compatible (to the same degree that Zope 2
>  releases are currently backward compatible with previous Zope 2
>  releases) with Zope 2.  Zope 5 will similarly be backward
>  compatible with Zope 3 applications built on top of the current
>  Zope 3 application server.
> 
>  Note that Zope 5 will leverage Zope 3 technologies to allow a
>  variety of configurations, including a Zope 2-like configuration
>  with implicit acquisition and through-the-web development, and a
>  Zope 3-like configuration that looks a lot like the current Zope
>  3 application server.  Maybe, there will be a configuration that
>  allows Zope 2 and Zope 3 applications to be combined to a
>  significant degree.
> 
>- Zope 3 will explode. :)
> 
>  For many people, Zope 3 is first a collection of technologies
>  that can be assembled into a variety of different applications.
>  It is second a Zope 2-like application server.  I think that
>  these folks aren't really interested in the (Zope 2-like)
>  application server.
> 
>  Zope 3 will continue as a project (or projects) for creating
>  and refining these technologies.  
> 
>  (It would probably make sense for this activity to to have some
>   name other than "Zope".  On some level, the logical name would
>   be "Z" (pronounced "Zed" :).  An argument against "Z" is that 
>   it would be hard to google for, but Google handles such queries
>   quite well and I'd expect that we'd move to the top of Google Z
>   search results fairly quickly.  However, I'll leave naming
>   decisions to experts. ;)

I would vote for spelling out Zed (which would also be a little easier
to google but might create trademark problems). The namespace package
could either be 'z' or 'zed'.

Then again, I really should take Jim's side and stay out of naming
decisions.

>Advantages of this vision:
> 
>- Zope 2 users don't need to leave Zope 2. 
> 
>- Zope 3 doesn't have to reproduce all Zope 2 features.
> 
>- There wouldn't be confusion about 2 Zopes.
> 
>It is important that Zope 5 be backward compatible with both Zope 2
>and Zope 3, although not necessarily in the same
>configuration. Many people are building Zope 3 applications today
>and they should not be penalized.

I'll note that while Zope will remain to be the application server (in
its Zope 5 incarnation), you should and would still be able to create
WSGI-capable object-publishing applications with the Zed pieces fairly
easily, for example when you don't need the full-blown Zope experience.

I will also note that just because Zope 2 won't die, it doesn't mean we
shouldn't clean it up. Eventually, Zope should mostly be reusing things
from Zed. A Zope distribution would include a fair number of Zed eggs
and the Zope-specific things should live under the 'Zope2' namespace
package. Fortunately we're already starting with cleaning up some of the
top-level packages (zLOG, TAL, StructuredText) in Zope 2.10.

Philipp
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
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: Two visions

[Max M]

Dario Lopez-Kästen wrote:

Max M said the following on 2006-02-27 17:26:


Jim Fulton wrote:


2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.




Zope 2 is complicated! It has too many layers of everything.



read the full sentence that Jim wrote:

 > 2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
 >
...
 >
 >  Note that Zope 5 will leverage Zope 3 technologies to allow a
 >  variety of configurations, including a Zope 2-like configuration
 >  with implicit acquisition and through-the-web development, and a
 >  Zope 3-like configuration that looks a lot like the current Zope
 >  3 application server.  Maybe, there will be a configuration that
 >  allows Zope 2 and Zope 3 applications to be combined to a
 >  significant degree.

In this scenario I cannot see how much of the old ways of zope2 remain 
(unless I have a totally unrealistic view of what Jim proposes). zope 2 
or zop3 become an issue of configuring which "components"/parts to use.



But he also says:

   - Zope 3 doesn't have to reproduce all Zope 2 features.

Which i fear could mean that the Zope 2 stack will hang in there for ever.

I am pretty shure that is not what he meant meant to imply, I just 
wanted to make my view clear.



--

hilsen/regards Max M, Denmark

http://www.mxm.dk/
IT's Mad Science

___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
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: Two visions

[Stefane Fermigier]

Max M wrote:
> Jim Fulton wrote:
>
>> 2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
>
> Zope 2 is complicated! It has too many layers of everything.

Layers are good, when they reliably hide complexity.

> The reason for Zope 3 is to make it simpler for developers.

Yep. 14'30'' wikis and such.

> Therefore I believe that any succesfull strategy would require Zope 3
> to be usable completely without all the Zope 2 layers.
>
> If Zope 3 becomes just another layer on top of Zope 2 -> CMF -> Plone
> it will not reduce complexity, as any developer would still need to
> learn the entire stack.

You mean, "on top" -> "below" ?

(And "Plone" -> "CPS" ;) ).
> Wherever practical, Zope 2 technologies should be rewritten to Zope 3
> technologies to remove layers from the stack.

To make discussion concrete, is there a list of (core, not CMF) Zope 2
technologies that are currently missing from Zope 3 ?

  S.

-- 
Stéfane Fermigier, Tel: +33 (0)6 63 04 12 77 (mobile).
Nuxeo Collaborative Portal Server: http://www.nuxeo.com/cps
Gestion de contenu web / portail collaboratif / groupware / open source!

___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
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: Two visions

[Dario Lopez-Kästen]

Max M said the following on 2006-02-27 17:26:

Jim Fulton wrote:


2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.



Zope 2 is complicated! It has too many layers of everything.



read the full sentence that Jim wrote:

> 2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
>
...
>
>  Note that Zope 5 will leverage Zope 3 technologies to allow a
>  variety of configurations, including a Zope 2-like configuration
>  with implicit acquisition and through-the-web development, and a
>  Zope 3-like configuration that looks a lot like the current Zope
>  3 application server.  Maybe, there will be a configuration that
>  allows Zope 2 and Zope 3 applications to be combined to a
>  significant degree.

In this scenario I cannot see how much of the old ways of zope2 remain 
(unless I have a totally unrealistic view of what Jim proposes). zope 2 
or zop3 become an issue of configuring which "components"/parts to use.


/dario

--
-- ---
Dario Lopez-Kästen, IT Systems & Services Chalmers University of Tech.
Lyrics applied to programming & application design:
"emancipate yourself from mental slavery" - redemption song, b. marley

___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
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] Two visions

[Lennart Regebro]

OK, some initial, fuzzy comments:

On 2/27/06, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In this vision, Zope 3 would have to become a lot more like
>Zope 2, or we would lose features.

You are thinking about things like TTW development and such? Because I
see that as add-on products of different kinds. Like cpsskins to
develop the look, and some sort of persistent schemas combined with
some sort of aspect-oriented classes. ;-)

If there is some sort of real "core" thingy that you lose going from
Zope2 to Zope3 I must have missed it. :-p

> 2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
>
>- Zope 5 will be the application server generally known as Zope.  It
>  will be backward compatible (to the same degree that Zope 2
>  releases are currently backward compatible with previous Zope 2
>  releases) with Zope 2.  Zope 5 will similarly be backward
>  compatible with Zope 3 applications built on top of the current
>  Zope 3 application server.
>
>  Note that Zope 5 will leverage Zope 3 technologies to allow a
>  variety of configurations, including a Zope 2-like configuration
>  with implicit acquisition and through-the-web development, and a
>  Zope 3-like configuration that looks a lot like the current Zope
>  3 application server.  Maybe, there will be a configuration that
>  allows Zope 2 and Zope 3 applications to be combined to a
>  significant degree.

This overwhelms my complexity sensor. :-)

I like the vision of Zope2 becoming a set of extra packages you
install for Zope3, to get backwards compatibility. Maybe this is the
same as what you call Zope 5, maybe not.

>- There wouldn't be confusion about 2 Zopes.

This is definitely true...

--
Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo http://www.nuxeo.com/
CPS Content Management http://www.cps-project.org/
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
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] Two visions

[Dario Lopez-Kästen]

My 2 EuroCents:

Vision 1 is, I think what is happening at the moment for pragamatic and 
practical reasons. Drawbacks of this is that we loose the ZopeX3 
(Zope3X?) vision of cutting loose from old burdens and take off to new 
horizons.


Vision 2, on the other hand (at least to me in my 
not-really-started-with-z3-development-yet situation), is a lot more 
appealing for a variety of reasons, not the least that choosing working 
development model (zope2 and zope3 for starters, there may be others) 
becomes a "configuration"(*) issue.


The potential benefits of this approach are very appealing (almost like 
eating the cake and still having it :), so I vote for vision 2.


/dario

(*) Configuration in a broad sense: mind model, conf-files, development 
model, etc...

--
-- ---
Dario Lopez-Kästen, IT Systems & Services Chalmers University of Tech.
Lyrics applied to programming & application design:
"emancipate yourself from mental slavery" - redemption song, b. marley

___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
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] Two visions

[Andrew Sawyers]

On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 10:37 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
> I'd like to get feedback on two possible visions for the future of
> Zope 2 and Zope 3.  
> 
> 1) Our current vision (AFAIK) is that Zope 3 will eventually
>replace Zope 2
> 
>- There will be lots of overlap between the Zope 2 and Zope 3
>  lifetimes.  (Zope 2 might be supported more or less
>  forever.)
> 
>- Eventually, the gap between Zope 2 and will become very small. 
>  requiring a small leap.
> 
>In this vision, Zope 3 would have to become a lot more like
>Zope 2, or we would lose features.
-1
>   

> 2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.

> 
>- Zope 5 will be the application server generally known as Zope.  It
>  will be backward compatible (to the same degree that Zope 2
>  releases are currently backward compatible with previous Zope 2
>  releases) with Zope 2.  Zope 5 will similarly be backward
>  compatible with Zope 3 applications built on top of the current
>  Zope 3 application server.
> 
>  Note that Zope 5 will leverage Zope 3 technologies to allow a
>  variety of configurations, including a Zope 2-like configuration
>  with implicit acquisition and through-the-web development, and a
>  Zope 3-like configuration that looks a lot like the current Zope
>  3 application server.  Maybe, there will be a configuration that
>  allows Zope 2 and Zope 3 applications to be combined to a
>  significant degree.
> 
>- Zope 3 will explode. :)
> 
>  For many people, Zope 3 is first a collection of technologies
>  that can be assembled into a variety of different applications.
>  It is second a Zope 2-like application server.  I think that
>  these folks aren't really interested in the (Zope 2-like)
>  application server.
> 
>  Zope 3 will continue as a project (or projects) for creating
>  and refining these technologies.  
> 
>  (It would probably make sense for this activity to to have some
>   name other than "Zope".  On some level, the logical name would
>   be "Z" (pronounced "Zed" :).  An argument against "Z" is that 
>   it would be hard to google for, but Google handles such queries
>   quite well and I'd expect that we'd move to the top of Google Z
>   search results fairly quickly.  However, I'll leave naming
>   decisions to experts. ;)
> 
>Advantages of this vision:
> 
>- Zope 2 users don't need to leave Zope 2. 
> 
>- Zope 3 doesn't have to reproduce all Zope 2 features.
> 
>- There wouldn't be confusion about 2 Zopes.
> 
>It is important that Zope 5 be backward compatible with both Zope 2
>and Zope 3, although not necessarily in the same
>configuration. Many people are building Zope 3 applications today
>and they should not be penalized.
> 
> Thoughts?
+2 

I personally think that one of the great things about what has come out
of Zope 3 development:  other projects can use the technologies without
taking Zope 3 lock stock and barrel.  I'd hate to see Zope 3 get more
girth and loose future traction because it had to be fully backwards
compatible with Zope 2.  For those who wish to slowly migrate to using
Zope 3 technologies without completely rewriting their software,
evolving via Five is a fair approach.  

To quote a blog I'd read earlier today:  Doing little things well is a
step towards doing big things better.

Allowing others to assist in refining the little technologies which make
up Zope 3 can achieve this goal.  I would fear this would be impossible
if the first vision was followed.

Andrew Sawyers
> 
> Jim
> 

___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
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] Two visions

[Jim Fulton]

I'd like to get feedback on two possible visions for the future of
Zope 2 and Zope 3.  

1) Our current vision (AFAIK) is that Zope 3 will eventually
   replace Zope 2

   - There will be lots of overlap between the Zope 2 and Zope 3
 lifetimes.  (Zope 2 might be supported more or less
 forever.)

   - Eventually, the gap between Zope 2 and will become very small. 
 requiring a small leap.

   In this vision, Zope 3 would have to become a lot more like
   Zope 2, or we would lose features.

2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.

   - Zope 5 will be the application server generally known as Zope.  It
 will be backward compatible (to the same degree that Zope 2
 releases are currently backward compatible with previous Zope 2
 releases) with Zope 2.  Zope 5 will similarly be backward
 compatible with Zope 3 applications built on top of the current
 Zope 3 application server.

 Note that Zope 5 will leverage Zope 3 technologies to allow a
 variety of configurations, including a Zope 2-like configuration
 with implicit acquisition and through-the-web development, and a
 Zope 3-like configuration that looks a lot like the current Zope
 3 application server.  Maybe, there will be a configuration that
 allows Zope 2 and Zope 3 applications to be combined to a
 significant degree.

   - Zope 3 will explode. :)

 For many people, Zope 3 is first a collection of technologies
 that can be assembled into a variety of different applications.
 It is second a Zope 2-like application server.  I think that
 these folks aren't really interested in the (Zope 2-like)
 application server.

 Zope 3 will continue as a project (or projects) for creating
 and refining these technologies.  

 (It would probably make sense for this activity to to have some
  name other than "Zope".  On some level, the logical name would
  be "Z" (pronounced "Zed" :).  An argument against "Z" is that 
  it would be hard to google for, but Google handles such queries
  quite well and I'd expect that we'd move to the top of Google Z
  search results fairly quickly.  However, I'll leave naming
  decisions to experts. ;)

   Advantages of this vision:

   - Zope 2 users don't need to leave Zope 2. 

   - Zope 3 doesn't have to reproduce all Zope 2 features.

   - There wouldn't be confusion about 2 Zopes.

   It is important that Zope 5 be backward compatible with both Zope 2
   and Zope 3, although not necessarily in the same
   configuration. Many people are building Zope 3 applications today
   and they should not be penalized.

Thoughts?

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  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
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: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Release schedule and deprecation decisions

[Jim Fulton]

On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 09:58 +0100, Christian Theune wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Sun, 2006-02-05 at 12:11 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
> > A while ago, we had some discussion on when to make releases and
> > how long to support deprecated features.  The discussion has died down
> > so I'll summarize what I think the conclusions were:
> > 
> > - We'll move releases up one month to may and November from June and
> >December.  This means that the next release is scheduled for May and
> >the next feature freeze is April 1.

...

> Yikes. I do support the general decision, although this mangles my
> schedule about getting ready with the CC implemetation.
> 
> +1

Thinking about this some more, I propose we should go for
June and November this year, to give Christian and others more
time and then do May and November from there on.

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  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
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] [ANN] pythonproducts 1.0alpha1 released

[Rocky Burt]

Hi all,

I've now made available the first public release of pythonproducts.

pythonproducts
==

Description
  A mechanism to construct Zope 2 products as regular python 
  packages.  This enables a python package to be deployed as a 
  Zope 2 product using a similar strategy as Zope 3.

Author/Maintainer
  `Rocky Burt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>`__

Latest Release
  `1.0alpha1
`__

License
  BSD-style, see LICENSE.txt for details

Source Control
  http://codespeak.net/svn/z3/pythonproducts/
 
Requirements
  - Python 2.3.5 or higher in 2.3.x series
  - Zope 2.8.4 or higher in 2.8.x series
  - Five 1.2 or higher

Installing
  Uses regular python distutils for installation.  Simply run::
  
./setup.py install --home /some/path/to/zope_instance_home

Usage
  Once pythonproducts has been installed, the standard practise 
  of installing a python package as a Zope 2 product is as 
  follows:
  
1. edit (or create it if it doesn't exist already) 
   ``$YOUR_PKG_SOURCE/configure.zcml`` and add the line 
   
2. copy your python package to ``$INSTANCE_HOME/lib/python``
3. create a ZCML "slug" by creating the file 
   ``
$INSTANCE_HOME/etc/package-includes/yourpackage-configure.zcml`` and
   populating it with 

Explanation of Usage
  Step 1: Your python package needs to register itself as a 
  Zope 2 product.  This is accomplished by using the new
  ``registerPackage`` directive.  This directive takes a 
  (required) "package" attribute which declares any python 
  package as a Zope 2 product (with "." meaning this package).  
  Another (optional) attribute is the 'initialize' attribute.  
  If this attribute is defined, a function with that name 
  will be invoked in a traditional Zope 2 style with a 
  ProductContext instance as the sole argument.
  
  Step 2: Your python package needs to exist *somewhere* on 
  PYTHONPATH.  With Zope 2.8, $INSTANCE_HOME/lib/python is 
  added to the PYTHONPATH so copying your python package 
  there ensures its somewhere in PYTHONPATH.  But really your 
  python package could be copied to any directory that exists 
  on PYTHONPATH (ie /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages).
  
  Step 3: The standard way of registering a package with Zope 3 is 
  to create a ZCML "slug" in the $INSTANCE_HOME/etc/package-includes
  directory.  This file can be called anything as long as it ends 
  with "-configure.zcml".
 


-- 
Rocky Burt
AdaptiveWave - Consulting, Training, and Content Management as a Service
http://www.adaptivewave.com
Content Management Made Simple


___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
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 )