Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.9 releases for Windows?
Sidnei da Silva wrote: Run 'inst/WinBuilders/buildout zope'. Ah, you need Inno 5.x too. See inst/WinBuilders/README.txt for the complete instructions. OK, are either you (or anyone else at Enfold) or Tim going to roll the 2.9.1 binary or would you like me to pick it up from now on? 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] Re: Zope 2.9 releases for Windows?
--On 2. März 2006 11:42:09 +0100 Wolfgang Strobl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In case your file is to be taken as the Zope-2.9.1 windows release i'd need it at the Zope-2.9.1 release folder and not at your member folder. Sure. I've removed it from my member folder. I think one needs to be Manager to upload content to the Products area on zope.org. I would give the new window maintainer a local Manager role in this case...so who is willing to care about the future Windows build? I would like to see a longer commitment for this job. Thanks, Andreas pgpnHwzp7fgXN.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: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.9 releases for Windows?
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 06:43:38PM +, Chris Withers wrote: | Sidnei da Silva wrote: | Run 'inst/WinBuilders/buildout zope'. | | Ah, you need Inno 5.x too. See inst/WinBuilders/README.txt for the | complete instructions. | | OK, are either you (or anyone else at Enfold) or Tim going to roll the | 2.9.1 binary or would you like me to pick it up from now on? Can't promise anything about 2.9.1. It might happen later on though. -- Sidnei da Silva Enfold Systems, LLC. http://enfoldsystems.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 )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: Two visions
On Tue, 2006-28-02 at 13:21 +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote: Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: [snip] 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. Let's please not have a naming discussion again. I think renaming Zope 3 is really bad marketing myself and naming discussions mostly a waste of time... As I sit here spending sooo much time reading this thread, I've finally decided its time to throw in my own naive point of view as an ex-J2EE developer and a Zope 2 developer that generally builds applications on top of Zope2/CMF/Plone. Let me make a random comments. 1) The Zope 3 name and brand is a marketing disaster (from my perspective) -- to be honest there's really no way I could see this actually getting worse by coming up with a new name. How many times in the #plone channel do we get asked, Does Plone run on Zope 3.1/3.2? or, When will Plone run on Zope 3.2 to which we say no to the first question and dunno to the second question. 2) Today when I build new applications with Plone, the best I can hope for is to use Zope 3 as a framework and Zope 2 as a deployment platform. Although the reality is I still use Zope 2 as a framework fr too much as well. I'm hoping (expecting) that Five will continue to make the requirement to use Zope 2 as a framework diminish more and more. As a developer, I certainly prefer working with Zope 3 the framework over Zope 2 the framework. 3) New developers who are moving in to either learn how to use Zope to develop applications or support existing zope applications of course immediately download the highest number Zope (zope 3 of course). They start using it and (hopefully) enjoy working on it and discover there's a big zope community with lots of developed applications. Then this developer starts googling for a type of plugin/component he needs to make sure he's not reinventing the wheel and discovers there's a HUGE plethora of Zope applications that do not even run on his latest zope platform and won't run on that platform in the foreseeable future. Ok, let me say what I think regarding these things. If we started treating zope 3 as just a framework and put energies back into maintaing/refactoring/beautifying zope2 as an application server that uses that framework at its core (this is essentially what zope 2.8+ is working towards with Five IMHO) then this could help several ways: 1) we stop spending time reproducing zope2 app server functionality in zope3 2) we stop building more into zope2 as a framework (i think this is pretty much already happening) Anyway, this still keeps things very confusing from a naming perspective (mostly for new adopters). So having said all of that, I am actually +1 on Jim's proposal #2. What I see from that (someone correct me if I'm wrong) is the following: 1) rename zope 3 the framework as Z or zopelib or Zed or something sensical that doesn't confuse the early adopter's conquest of trying to figure out which zope to start with 2) Make zope 2 the application server acquire the name zope once again and be the only app server. This could only work (from a new adopter's perspective) if either the application server is given a new name or given a version number higher than 3. Who are we worried aboug confusing here? Existing Zope 3 developers? Zope 2 developers? I don't think so, those people are smart enough to figure it out. So I say lets focus on not confusing new adopters in which case SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE ABOUT THE CURRENT NAMING SITUATION! Kind Regards, Rocky -- 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 )
[Zope-dev] Re: Re: Two visions
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 09:43:03 -0330, Rocky Burt wrote: Anyway, this still keeps things very confusing from a naming perspective (mostly for new adopters). So having said all of that, I am actually +1 on Jim's proposal #2. What I see from that (someone correct me if I'm wrong) is the following: 1) rename zope 3 the framework as Z or zopelib or Zed or something sensical that doesn't confuse the early adopter's conquest of trying to figure out which zope to start with 2) Make zope 2 the application server acquire the name zope once again and be the only app server. This could only work (from a new adopter's perspective) if either the application server is given a new name or given a version number higher than 3. I agree with Rocky's assessment. +1 on Jim's suggestion #2. However, if I am understanding things correctly, it doesn't really sound like door #2 entails a huge deviation from from our current course of bringing Zope 2 and Zope 3 together gradually. I don't really care what the converged product is called, Zope 2.250 or Zope 3.99 or Zope 5. My take is that Jim is not really proposing anything all that different from what Martijn wants -- a gradual convergence of Zope 2 and 3. Rather, it sounds like the biggest changes in Jim's proposal #2 entail 1) a change in how we _talk_ about what we are doing, and 2) an explicit attempt to factor out some of the Zope 3 goodness into a more generic, less-monolithic-app-server framework, Zed. (am I right here, Jim?) I think that the idea of giving Zed its own, distinct identity is great. Zope 3 is a _huge_ overhaul and it needs to be obvious to the world that it is dramatically better than crufty old Zope 2. Zope 3 then becomes the Zed application server; Zope 2 is getting Zed retrofits via Five, and the two will eventually converge into Zope 5. A distinct Zed distribution could bring in developers who are just interested in using the component architecture but not necessarily a big app server stack. It would be cool to see Zed popping up in random python products or perhaps in TurboGears / Django internals. And more than just cool -- the more people we can get using Zed, the more code we will be able to mix in easily to Zope (2/3/5) applications. Geoff ___ 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?
+1 on Jim's suggestion #2. However, if I am understanding things correctly, it doesn't really sound like door #2 entails a huge deviation from from our current course of bringing Zope 2 and Zope 3 together gradually. I don't really care what the converged product is called, be it Zope 2.250 or Zope 3.99 or Zope 5. My take is that Jim is not really proposing anything all that different from what Martijn wants -- a gradual convergence of Zope 2 and 3. Rather, it sounds like the biggest changes in Jim's proposal #2 entail: 1) a change in how we _talk_ about what we are doing, and 2) an explicit attempt to factor out some of the Zope 3 goodness into a more generic, less-monolithic-app-server framework, Zed (or Z or ZomethingElse). Am I right here, Jim? I think that the idea of giving Zed its own, distinct identity is great. Zope 3 is a _huge_ overhaul and it needs to be obvious to the world that it is dramatically better than crufty old Zope 2. Zope 3 then becomes the Zed application server; Zope 2 is getting Zed retrofits via Five, and the two will eventually converge into Zope 5 (or Zope 2.27 or whatever). A distinct Zed distribution could bring in developers who are just interested in using the component architecture but not necessarily a big app server stack. It would be cool to see Zed popping up in random python products or perhaps even in TurboGears / Django internals. And more than just cool -- the more people we can get using Zed, the more code we will be able to mix in easily to Zope (2/3/5) applications. Geoff ___ 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?
Geoff Davis wrote: I think that the idea of giving Zed its own, distinct identity is great. I think it is stupid. We (Zope Corp + the Zope Community) have spent 8 years building the Zope brand, and you want to restart from scratch ? S. -- Stéfane Fermigier, Tel: +33 (0)6 63 04 12 77 (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 )
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions?
On Thursday 02 March 2006 10:29, Stefane Fermigier wrote: Geoff Davis wrote: I think that the idea of giving Zed its own, distinct identity is great. I think it is stupid. Me too!! Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - 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] Two visions?
Geoff Davis wrote: +1 on Jim's suggestion #2. However, if I am understanding things correctly, it doesn't really sound like door #2 entails a huge deviation from from our current course of bringing Zope 2 and Zope 3 together gradually. I don't really care what the converged product is called, be it Zope 2.250 or Zope 3.99 or Zope 5. My take is that Jim is not really proposing anything all that different from what Martijn wants -- a gradual convergence of Zope 2 and 3. Rather, it sounds like the biggest changes in Jim's proposal #2 entail: 1) a change in how we _talk_ about what we are doing, and 2) an explicit attempt to factor out some of the Zope 3 goodness into a more generic, less-monolithic-app-server framework, Zed (or Z or ZomethingElse). Am I right here, Jim? Yup. Realizing that there are two distinc efforts (the app server and the collection of technologies) and making that distinction clear. I think that the idea of giving Zed its own, distinct identity is great. Zope 3 is a _huge_ overhaul and it needs to be obvious to the world that it is dramatically better than crufty old Zope 2. Zope 3 then becomes the Zed application server; Zope 2 is getting Zed retrofits via Five, and the two will eventually converge into Zope 5 (or Zope 2.27 or whatever). Ooops. OK I guess I was clear as mud. :) My idea for Z, pronounced zed or whatever the naming gods decide is that it was *not* an app server. It is an un-app-server. :) A collection of technologies that are useful by themselves, to support an app server and useful to build non-app-server applications, web or otherwise. I think that Z3 is better than Z2 in a lot of ways. I also think that Z2 is more mature and complete. I really want us to combine those efforts. I think we've achieved enough and learned enough with Zope 3 that we can now bring that to bear and make Zope 2 better, refactoring the cruft away and applying the lessons we've learned with Zope 3. (Note that Zope 3 is not crust free.) I don't really care what this thing ends up being called, except that it *must* be called Zope. A distinct Zed distribution could bring in developers who are just interested in using the component architecture but not necessarily a big app server stack. It would be cool to see Zed popping up in random python products or perhaps even in TurboGears / Django internals. And more than just cool -- the more people we can get using Zed, the more code we will be able to mix in easily to Zope (2/3/5) applications. This paragraph makes me think I was clear. Yes, we need to follow Ian Bicking's advice and release our technology in bite-sized chunks. I'm hopeful that the packaging efforts underway will lead to more of that. 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: [Zope-dev] Two visions?
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 10:38:03 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote: I think that the idea of giving Zed its own, distinct identity is great. Zope 3 is a _huge_ overhaul and it needs to be obvious to the world that it is dramatically better than crufty old Zope 2. Zope 3 then becomes the Zed application server; Zope 2 is getting Zed retrofits via Five, and the two will eventually converge into Zope 5 (or Zope 2.27 or whatever). Ooops. OK I guess I was clear as mud. :) My idea for Z, pronounced zed or whatever the naming gods decide is that it was *not* an app server. It is an un-app-server. :) A collection of technologies that are useful by themselves, to support an app server and useful to build non-app-server applications, web or otherwise. No, I think I understood you. I was being sloppy in my use of language. I should have said something more like Zope 3 then becomes an application server built around the Zed library. I think that Z3 is better than Z2 in a lot of ways. I also think that Z2 is more mature and complete. I really want us to combine those efforts. I think we've achieved enough and learned enough with Zope 3 that we can now bring that to bear and make Zope 2 better, refactoring the cruft away and applying the lessons we've learned with Zope 3. (Note that Zope 3 is not crust free.) I don't really care what this thing ends up being called, except that it *must* be called Zope. Yes, I agree. Zope is the app server. I think that is consistent with the past use of the brand. This paragraph makes me think I was clear. Yes, we need to follow Ian Bicking's advice and release our technology in bite-sized chunks. I'm hopeful that the packaging efforts underway will lead to more of that. Yes, and the use of the new name Z or Zed is a way to emphasize that the Zed library is NOT a big, monolithic app server; rather, it's something new and cool. Geoff ___ 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?
Geoff Davis wrote: Yes, and the use of the new name Z or Zed is a way to emphasize that the Zed library is NOT a big, monolithic app server; rather, it's something new and cool. Zope 3 is new and cool. Or at least, let's spin it this way. Screencasts, podcasts, 14'59 wikis (quicker than TurboGears!), the whole sheebang. 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 )
Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions?
Stefane Fermigier wrote: Geoff Davis wrote: I think that the idea of giving Zed its own, distinct identity is great.. I think it is stupid. We (Zope Corp + the Zope Community) have spent 8 years building the Zope brand, and you want to restart from scratch ? Hehe, poor Geoff. :) In the past, the Zope community hasn't made it a *strategic* goal to play nice with other Python projects. In the past, the Zope community hasn't made it a goal to be a sea of autonomous components. Its goal has been: top-to-bottom app server. We now have (I think!) said those goals are now in scope. Those goals are currently being met using the same name as the assembly. Trying to achieve the goals of the components, using the same word as the assembly, might not be the best way to achieve those goals. The comments I got on my pro-Zope weblog post showed that, if we *do* care about these new goals, we should consider whether the name is a barrier *for the components*. Alternatively, we could say: The components should only be used in the Zope application server. Perhaps that's the goal. I think Geoff's core point could be met by keeping the word Zope for the app server. I think Geoff's deeper point was to rethink the word used for the CA, which actually doesn't want to be thought of us an app server. --Paul ___ 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?
Geoff Davis wrote: On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 10:38:03 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote: I think that the idea of giving Zed its own, distinct identity is great. Zope 3 is a _huge_ overhaul and it needs to be obvious to the world that it is dramatically better than crufty old Zope 2. Zope 3 then becomes the Zed application server; Zope 2 is getting Zed retrofits via Five, and the two will eventually converge into Zope 5 (or Zope 2.27 or whatever). Ooops. OK I guess I was clear as mud. :) My idea for Z, pronounced zed or whatever the naming gods decide is that it was *not* an app server. It is an un-app-server. :) A collection of technologies that are useful by themselves, to support an app server and useful to build non-app-server applications, web or otherwise. No, I think I understood you. I was being sloppy in my use of language. I should have said something more like Zope 3 then becomes an application server built around the Zed library. Good clarification. I think that Z3 is better than Z2 in a lot of ways. I also think that Z2 is more mature and complete. I really want us to combine those efforts. I think we've achieved enough and learned enough with Zope 3 that we can now bring that to bear and make Zope 2 better, refactoring the cruft away and applying the lessons we've learned with Zope 3. (Note that Zope 3 is not crust free.) I don't really care what this thing ends up being called, except that it *must* be called Zope. Yes, I agree. Zope is the app server. I think that is consistent with the past use of the brand. Yep. This paragraph makes me think I was clear. Yes, we need to follow Ian Bicking's advice and release our technology in bite-sized chunks. I'm hopeful that the packaging efforts underway will lead to more of that. Yes, and the use of the new name Z or Zed is a way to emphasize that the Zed library is NOT a big, monolithic app server; rather, it's something new and cool. I think this brings up an interesting paradox in the discussion. We want Zope to continue being the name of an app server. But we also want the CA to be perceived as usable outside of an app server. Outside of Zope, even. Thus, we are using the same name used to convey: It *is* an app server! It's *not* an app server! I think this might be a contradiction and might be worth discussing. People have it set in their brain that Zope is a monolithic web application server. Hard to dispel that meme. --Paul ___ 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?
Paul Everitt wrote: ... People have it set in their brain that Zope is a monolithic web application server. Hard to dispel that meme. Yup. I'd rather adjust the meme to: Zope is a agile flexible extensible app server with rich services. :) Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL 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] Re: Re: Two visions
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 09:43:03 -0330, Rocky Burt wrote: On Tue, 2006-28-02 at 13:21 +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote: Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: [snip] 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. Let's please not have a naming discussion again. I think renaming Zope 3 is really bad marketing myself and naming discussions mostly a waste of time... As I sit here spending sooo much time reading this thread yes, it's a big'un alright... 1) The Zope 3 name and brand is a marketing disaster (from my perspective) -- to be honest there's really no way I could see this actually getting worse by coming up with a new name. How many times in the #plone channel do we get asked, Does Plone run on Zope 3.1/3.2? or, When will Plone run on Zope 3.2 to which we say no to the first question and dunno to the second question. +100. it's a confusing mess to anyone who isn't spending as much time as we all are reading this stuff every day. come to think of it, it's a confusing mess to us, too. If we started treating zope 3 as just a framework and put energies back into maintaing/refactoring/beautifying zope2 as an application server that uses that framework at its core (this is essentially what zope 2.8+ is working towards with Five IMHO) then this could help several ways: 1) we stop spending time reproducing zope2 app server functionality in zope3 2) we stop building more into zope2 as a framework (i think this is pretty much already happening) i agree with this sentiment, although i do recognize that there are folks who are currently using zope3 as an app-server, and who (understandably) don't want to have anything to do w/ anything zope2 related, ever again. Anyway, this still keeps things very confusing from a naming perspective (mostly for new adopters). So having said all of that, I am actually +1 on Jim's proposal #2. What I see from that (someone correct me if I'm wrong) is the following: 1) rename zope 3 the framework as Z or zopelib or Zed or something sensical that doesn't confuse the early adopter's conquest of trying to figure out which zope to start with 2) Make zope 2 the application server acquire the name zope once again and be the only app server. This could only work (from a new adopter's perspective) if either the application server is given a new name or given a version number higher than 3. i support this idea as well, but i think we have to recognize that there will be some parallel app-server-ness happening for a while, until z2 becomes so thin that we have achieved complete convergence btn the z2/five-based and the z3-based app server platforms that are already being used. -r ___ 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: Re: Two visions
Strange how (most of) the Plone people seem to be so quick in willing to sacrifice the Zope brand :( 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 )
Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions?
Stefane Fermigier wrote: I think that the idea of giving Zed its own, distinct identity is great. I think it is stupid. We (Zope Corp + the Zope Community) have spent 8 years building the Zope brand, and you want to restart from scratch ? Good point. There's the question: Does this zed thing need a different name at all? If we want other people to pick it up, then it seems like a good idea to distinguish it from Zope-the-app-server. Paul seems to suggest that in his response. How about zopelib? E.g.: * import zopelib.session * ez_install zopelib.publisher * etc. Actually, Shane suggested this once: http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ZopeLibPackage 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
Stefane Fermigier wrote: Strange how (most of) the Plone people seem to be so quick in willing to sacrifice the Zope brand :( It's not about sacrificing the Zope-the-app-server brand. It's actually about growing it in the sense that it becomes much clearer WHAT THE HELL Zope actually is. Or can you explain what Zope is in one sentence? I surely can't. I currently need more than a page in my book. Rocky Burt is right, the naming actually confuses the heck out of people. In that sense, Zope X3 was not such a bad idea that it clearly said that Zope 3 is totally different. Just the 'X' itself standing for 'eXperimental' was bad Zope3-marketing in itself, so we dropped it. I will also note that Jim's proposal is really not a lot about naming (he wants to stay out of it) but about focusing effort in ONE application server and ONE set of reusable libraries. This focus in efforts seems to suggest to come up differnet names for the two things, but that doesn't mean they can't still be related in a brand naming sense (e.g. Zope and zopelib or somethign like that). 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
Stefane Fermigier wrote: Strange how (most of) the Plone people seem to be so quick in willing to sacrifice the Zope brand :( um, if you reread what i said, and what i think rocky is trying to say, i'm in favor of _keeping_ the zope brand for the app server, which is what zope has always been, and what plone runs (and will continue to run) on top of. strange how stefane seems to be so quick to write incendiary posts w/o any real content in them... -r ___ 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?
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Good point. There's the question: Does this zed thing need a different name at all? If we want other people to pick it up, then it seems like a good idea to distinguish it from Zope-the-app-server. Paul seems to suggest that in his response. How about zopelib? If we want people outside of the zope community to use these components, they should not have the word zope anywhere in their name. If it says zope people will *always* assume it is for use only with/inside Zope (Zope 2 more often than not). I've seen this when I've told people about testing their web apps with zope.testbrowser. Their first response is invariably oh, I can't use that; I'm not using Zope. Therefore, whatever the bag-o-components is named it should not contain zope. Z or zed would be OK with me (especially if we could come up with some decent domain names that are still available). -- Benji York Senior Software Engineer Zope Corporation ___ 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?
Benji York wrote: Good point. There's the question: Does this zed thing need a different name at all? If we want other people to pick it up, then it seems like a good idea to distinguish it from Zope-the-app-server. Paul seems to suggest that in his response. How about zopelib? If we want people outside of the zope community to use these components, they should not have the word zope anywhere in their name. If it says zope people will *always* assume it is for use only with/inside Zope (Zope 2 more often than not). I've seen this when I've told people about testing their web apps with zope.testbrowser. Their first response is invariably oh, I can't use that; I'm not using Zope. Therefore, whatever the bag-o-components is named it should not contain zope. Z or zed would be OK with me (especially if we could come up with some decent domain names that are still available). I agree. zopelib was just a compromise for the people who like to keep the zed thing somewhat associated with Zope-the-project whereas we don't want this to be associated too closely with Zope-the-application-server for the reasons you state above. In the end the question is where we draw the line in all of this. 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: Re: Re: Two visions
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 19:31:38 -, Stefane Fermigier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Strange how (most of) the Plone people seem to be so quick in willing to sacrifice the Zope brand :( I don't think that's true. I'm certainly not, and I've not heard anyone directly in favour of that either. What I *am* in favour of is branding the current Zope efforts much more strongly, and I think that an *additional* name to hype a Zope 3 brand around (Zope 3 Zebra or whatever) would make such marketing easier. Building our software on a less obscure appserver would make Plone much stronger. I know a very large organisation that would jump on Plone if it were built in Java. Zope is scary. Martin -- (muted) ___ 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?
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 16:18:27 -, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Zope is a agile flexible extensible app server with rich services. You forgot Enterprise. Martin -- (muted) ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org 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 )
Next release un June (was Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Release schedule and deprecation decisions)
Jim Fulton wrote: 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. OK, this is a decision. The next release wil be in June. After that release, we'll switch to a May/November schedule. 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 )
