Hi,
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:34:47 +0200
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> So, who finds the Zope 3 ZMI useful? What parts of it do you find
> useful? Are you interested in helping maintain it?
For me, the ZMI is useful to managing local components, security settings,
making views for ad hoc changes etc.
I thhink just dropping zmi is ploblematical
without a management ui alternative. How would you propose managing
things like per instance pluggable auth components. zcml is not enough
and nor is any other static config. You need per instance persistent
configuration and I am assuming grok and anythi
I use zmi as a basic ui for viewing objects bacause we get basic views
for some default content, navigating the object store, and configuring
local security settings on objects, and configuring per instance tools.
And this is mainly because in the early stages of our projects we haven't built
the
Am Dienstag 14 April 2009 19:31:32 schrieb Martijn Faassen:
> Hey Fabio,
>
> Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
> > * 2009-04-14 18:35, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> >> So, who finds the Zope 3 ZMI useful? What parts of it do you find
> >> useful? Are you interested in helping maintain it?
> >
> > We use the ZMI
Am Dienstag 14 April 2009 19:32:20 schrieb Fabio Tranchitella:
> Hello,
>
> * 2009-04-14 19:25, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> > Do you use the Zope 3 ZMI a lot?
>
> It depends on your meaning of "a lot": we do not use it as main UI, not
> even for the back-end, nevertheless we often use it for managing
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
> [snip]
>> - In ZCML (or a grok.require() directive) use the Zope 3 name
>
> Grok also has a grok.Permission you can subclass, and those subclasses
> can also be passed to grok.require().
I know, but I kind of consider creating permissio
Hi Fabio, Martijn
> Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] who wants to maintain the Zope 3 ZMI?
>
> Hello,
>
> * 2009-04-14 19:35, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> > It might be an easier way to maintain this concept is to write a
> > simple UI for Zope 3 that only cares about installation of
> > applications? It
Hi there,
Closing that mega thread, here are some conclusions from it:
* many people are quite willing to make sure their existing applications
will still work.
* people are quite willing to maintain the KGS for Zope 3 and release
newer versions.
In both cases, the scope of Zope 3 has decreas
Hello,
* 2009-04-14 19:35, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> It might be an easier way to maintain this concept is to write a simple
> UI for Zope 3 that only cares about installation of applications? It'd be
> much less involved than all the ZMI code we currently have to worry
> about.
I'd be curious to
Hi Martijn
> Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] who wants to maintain Zope 3?
>
> Hey,
>
> Jim Fulton wrote:
> > I don't think these "bits" are cleanly separated. For
> example, if a
> > content component has some views, are those ZMI bits?
>
> Yes. zope.container doesn't define views. zope.app.conta
Hey Fabio,
Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
> * 2009-04-14 18:35, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> So, who finds the Zope 3 ZMI useful? What parts of it do you find useful?
>> Are you interested in helping maintain it?
>
> We use the ZMI to manage applications, where applications are instances of
> a content
Hello,
* 2009-04-14 19:25, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Do you use the Zope 3 ZMI a lot?
It depends on your meaning of "a lot": we do not use it as main UI, not
even for the back-end, nevertheless we often use it for managing our
"applications". I mean, adding/renaming/moving/editing objects to the Z
Hey,
Albertas Agejevas wrote:
[snip]
> You are using an interesting definition of "maintaining".
This is why I spelled it out.
But yes, if you maintain an open source project, and you want it to work
well, you need to take care about issues like maintaining its community,
which means document
Hey,
Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
[snip]
> If the question was "who is interested in zope3, the application server,
> and willing to maintain it", I'd answer "me".
Thanks for speaking up!
Do you use the Zope 3 ZMI a lot?
The Zope Toolkit right now is most of the Zope 3 libraries. The main
thing w
Hey,
Jim Fulton wrote:
> I don't think these "bits" are cleanly separated. For example, if a
> content component has some views, are those ZMI bits?
Yes. zope.container doesn't define views. zope.app.container did (and
does). "browser" directories are generally not part of the Zope Toolkit,
Hey,
Martin Aspeli wrote:
[snip]
> - In ZCML (or a grok.require() directive) use the Zope 3 name
Grok also has a grok.Permission you can subclass, and those subclasses
can also be passed to grok.require().
> - In code, e.g. when doing a checkPermission() call, use the Zope 2 name
> - With
Hello there,
* 2009-04-14 18:35, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> So, who finds the Zope 3 ZMI useful? What parts of it do you find useful?
> Are you interested in helping maintain it?
We use the ZMI to manage applications, where applications are instances of
a content object stored in the ZODB. All in a
Hi there,
In the whole discussion about Zope 3 I saw very few people speak up for
the Zope 3 ZMI.
So, who finds the Zope 3 ZMI useful? What parts of it do you find
useful? Are you interested in helping maintain it?
Note that I'm talking about the concrete Zope 3 ZMI here, not the
general conc
Hey,
Stephan Richter wrote:
> On Friday 10 April 2009, Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
>> With Zope 3 I mean:
>>
>> * the thing with the ZMI - do you care about the ZMI?
>
> I think boxing in Zope 3 being the ZMI app is not useful. I have not used the
> ZMI since 2 years now and I am still conside
Hi Martijn
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: zope-dev-boun...@zope.org
> [mailto:zope-dev-boun...@zope.org] Im Auftrag von Martijn Faassen
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 14. April 2009 17:54
> An: zope-dev@zope.org
> Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] who wants to maintain Zope 3?
>
> Hey,
>
> Baiju M
On Apr 14, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Jim Fulton wrote:
>
>> What the heck is the "Zope Toolkit"? Is there a page somewhere that
>> defines what it is?
>
> http://docs.zope.org/zopetoolkit/about/index.html
>
>> I thought Zope 3 was being renamed "Zope
>> Toolkit", but g
Hey,
Baiju M wrote:
[snip]
> Does Zope Tookit support building a web application out of the box
> without relying on Grok, Zope 2 or any other framework ?
> (I am Ok to use a Buildout for building application from
> Zope Toolkit packages)
This is a very good question. My answer is "no, it doesn'
Dieter Maurer wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote at 2009-4-10 18:33 +0200:
>> Is anyone interested in maintaining Zope 3?
>
> You should leave a bit more time before you take any drastic actions...
>
> There are holidays, time of intensive other activity, .
It'll take time before we all settle o
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> By now I count three people using Zope 3 for a small number of projects.
> But none of them seems to have the resources to continue the maintenance
> or future development of Zope 3.
Whilst you're absolutely right, just a word of warning: a lot of people
do not read ma
Hey,
Chris McDonough wrote:
[snip]
> Sounds like a plan... I hope to learn from what you do to get rid of some
> non-lxml C dependencies we have too (ala zope.interface, zope.proxy,
> zope.hookable, zope.i18nmessageid, etc); maybe we can fold some of this work
> into the normal or alternate ver
Hey,
Tim Hoffman wrote:
> can I specify security annotations on objects persisted in the zodb as
> per zope3/zope2
> which are over and above the class/view decleration.
I'll just note you can do this in Grok. Grok has per-model security
declarations, just like Zope 3's. It just doesn't have mod
Tim Hoffman wrote:
[snip]
> It seems from all the discussion of late that we might of chosen a
> architectural dead end (though I don't think so).
It's definitely not an architectural dead-end. I think the codebase we
used to call Zope 3 has been evolving faster in these few months in 2009
than
Hello,
* 2009-04-13 12:50, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
> > +1, to declaring Zope 3 dead. That should allow us to refactor the
> > remaining packages much more aggressively and reduce the dependencies.
>
> -1 from my standpoint. Two of my projects are fully based on the Zope 3
> server, and switch
Hey,
Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
[snip]
>> It's extremely important to understand the differences between Zope 3,
>> and Zope 3 technologies. The only thing that looks dead is Zope 3 as a
>> big monolithic application server. Few people are interested in that.
>> You seem to be. Hence the question:
Hey,
Jim Fulton wrote:
> What the heck is the "Zope Toolkit"? Is there a page somewhere that
> defines what it is?
http://docs.zope.org/zopetoolkit/about/index.html
> I thought Zope 3 was being renamed "Zope
> Toolkit", but given recent discussions, I'm not sure.
That never was the idea.
Hey,
Dieter Maurer wrote:
> Hanno Schlichting wrote at 2009-4-11 15:05 +0200:
>> ...
>> +1, to declaring Zope 3 dead. That should allow us to refactor the
>> remaining packages much more aggressively and reduce the dependencies.
>
> You (Zope developers) are very fast in declaring things dead and
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 06:33:51PM +0200, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Is anyone interested in maintaining Zope 3?
>
> With Zope 3 I mean:
>
> * the thing with the ZMI - do you care about the ZMI?
>
> * the thing that can be installed as a particular development platform -
> do you care about the insta
hi chris,
Chris Withers wrote:
> Andreas Jung wrote:
>>> Yes, so this change introduced a bug. Who's the right person to fix it?
>>> What's the right collector to report this in?
>> Since Acquisition is a core module of Zope: the Zope 2 tracker on Launchpad.
>
> Done:
>
> https://bugs.launchpad.
Roger Ineichen wrote:
>> Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] who wants to maintain Zope 3?
>>
>> Roger Ineichen wrote:
Betreff: [Zope-dev] who wants to maintain Zope 3?
Is anyone interested in maintaining Zope 3?
>> /me is certainly not
>
> I don't understand why you are not interested in Zope 3.
>
Hey,
Roger Ineichen wrote:
>> * the thing with the ZMI - do you care about the ZMI?
>
> Of corse do we all need the UI part for manage the components
> we install. But the old style ZMI views are obsolate this days.
> Right now we have to write this part for each project by ourself
> if they need
On Apr 14, 2009, at 10:34 AM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
...
> I'd merely suggest that if nobody responds to this thread announcing
> interest in Zope 3 the app server, then it might be time to consider
> it
> dead. Neither at PyCon nor during many of the last threads we found a
> single user of Z
Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Declaring things dead has a tendency to become a self-fulfilling
> prophecy, and probably not something we should do lightly.
I didn't mean to imply that we should declare Zope 3 dead based on this
mailing list thread. This is a big decision that might warrant a Zope
Founda
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Mon Apr 13 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Tue Apr 14 12:00:00 2009 UTC.
There were 8 messages: 8 from Zope Tests.
Test failures
-
Subject: FAILED (failures=1) : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.6 : Linux
From: Zope Tests
Date: Mon Apr 13 21:00:09 EDT 200
Am Montag 13 April 2009 16:33:02 schrieb Lennart Regebro:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 12:49, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
> > I personally find it interesting that people are that fast with turning
> > around and killing off things. I personally based my decision for Zope 3
> > on Philipps book ("Web
39 matches
Mail list logo
