Hi there,
Alexander Limi wrote:
[snip]
- Try not to be too clever with the "Taste"/"Get" and other links.
People actually scan for links that are similar from other projects, and
having to interpret/understand them is confusing. I would definitely
switch "Taste" to "Examples", and possibly "Ge
Kent Tenney wrote:
Look at Sphinx for providing brilliant access to ReST doc.
http://sphinx.pocoo.org/
I think looking at Sphinx is definitely a worthwhile effort. That said,
I agree with Martin that we shouldn't let the new website effort be held
up by (or distracted by) technological fixes.
Hey,
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mar 28, 2008, at 11:05 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> ...
>
> > +1 - I already mentioned this option as well. Note that existing Zope
> > 3 applications can at least be m
Hey,
Thanks for the feedback, Jim!
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>
> Some high-level comments:
>
> - I suggest making porting C speed-ups a very low (non-existent)
> priority.
>
> - I expect security proxies to be one of the greatest challenges.
Hi there,
If you're a student and you want to hack on Zope this summer in the
Google Summer of Code, sign up soon: the deadline is a week from now!
See here for more details:
http://faassen.n--tree.net/blog/view/weblog/2008/03/25/0
Regards,
Martijn
_
Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
Thoughts? Objections?
A simpler publisher has been on my wish-list for a long time now.
I'm a bit worried though that a publisher born from the current Zope 3
publisher with the goal to build up enough support for the Zope 3
publisher to make use of the code will not
The "Grokkerdam" Grok sprint
It was planned for a long time, but at last we are going to hold a Grok
sprint in the Netherlands. To be more precise, in Rotterdam. Rotterdam
will be "Grokkerdam" for the duration of the sprint!
Where: Rotterdam, the Netherlands
When: 30
Andreas Jung wrote:
what is your schedule for Zope 3.5.0 final? I am asking because I also
want to plan the 2.11.0 release.
Are you talking about 3.4 final? I see that's what Stephan's been
working on. :)
Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope-Dev maillist -
Hi there,
I just added a whole range of Grok-related projects to the summer of
code page, and only 1 Zope project, so if you want Zope 2 or 3 to be
represented in the google summer of code, you might want to consider
adding some proposals. :)
Regards,
Martijn
__
Hi there,
We are quickly approaching the Google of Summer of code again. The Zope
Foundation's application needs to be in soon.
In order to do a good application, we need to have a good selection of
mentors. So, if you're a Zope developer and you want to mentor a student
this summer, please
Hey,
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Christian Theune <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > but I don't see it flying
> > given the sentiments against that idea so far. Perhaps I'm wrong.
>
> Humm. Maybe there's just a misunderstanding. I didn't get that you
> wanted to only trump version pin
Christian Theune wrote:
[snip]
Here's an idea:
Let `develop` trump version pinning, but not any other constraints.
As far as I can see this would allow both of our scenarios to work or
continue to work.
I'd be happy with that too, and was really what I was aiming at, and I
think it doesn't
Hey,
Thanks everybody for this discussion. I'm going to bail out now, and I
want to share some of my conclusions:
* We're going to have to live with the current 'versions/develop' story
for a while. I've started try to document the existing behavior in
buildout's doctests (faassen-develop) b
Aaron Lehmann wrote:
On Feb 26, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Christophe Combelles wrote:
Martijn Faassen a écrit :
(...)
The two easiest choices are 1) issue a clear warning in stderr, or 2)
rename 'develop' to something else.
So, the people that understand either get spammed with warnin
Christian Theune wrote:
[snip]
Nope. I'm not always working against a fixed version list. E.g. when I
developt z3c.zalchemy then this is a library package, not an
application, so I don't fix the versions but let anything that satisfies
the the requirements in setup.py come in.
This thread is ca
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Martijn Faassen wrote:
Christian Theune wrote:
Martijn Faassen schrieb:
[snip]
It's a clear DRY violation, the name of the package (and even the
version number) repeats here.
It's not clear to me that it's a DRY violation (see my argum
Christian Theune wrote:
Martijn Faassen schrieb:
[snip]
It's a clear DRY violation, the name of the package (and even the
version number) repeats here.
It's not clear to me that it's a DRY violation (see my argument that
those functions are actually orthogonal).
The ru
David Pratt wrote:
Hi Martijn. I respect the points you make, but disagree with your
comments. Wichert's reply accurately articulates what we are asking
buildout to do. I share this view.
It's not very useful to talk about a "we" asking buildout to do things
when there is clearly a debate and
Christian Theune wrote:
Martijn Faassen schrieb:
[snip]
I think the explicit versus implicit discussion has no place here.
Placing a package on the 'develop' line is a very explicit action, and
you place it on that line because you want to *develop on it*. Having
another package be
Christian Theune wrote:
Stephan Richter schrieb:
On Saturday 23 February 2008, Jim Fulton wrote:
The additional version specification should be merged into the
extends version
section. The version "1.3.1dev" is the version the develop egg
specifies.
Yes. That's how it works now.
Cool, th
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Saturday 23 February 2008, Jim Fulton wrote:
The additional version specification should be merged into the
extends version
section. The version "1.3.1dev" is the version the develop egg
specifies.
Yes. That's how it works now.
Cool, then I think the behavior is c
Hey,
Roger Ineichen wrote:
[snip]
I'm fine with version over develop. It's just another thing
you have to know for sucessfull development. I guess my brain has some
little space for remember such tweaks in buildout ;-)
I'll accept it, but I'm not very happy. It's really an excellent way to
ge
David Pratt wrote:
Hi. I agree with Jim. Buildout is doing the right thing. This is not a
conflict since you have explicitly identified the software with a
version already. I think the right thing to do under the circumstances
would be to append a custom versions.cfg to nail the versions you wa
Christian Zagrodnick wrote:
On 2008-02-18 11:20:05 +0100, Christian Theune <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Launchpad started the beta tests for their mailing list offers. A
while ago we discussed this option for future hosting of the mailing
lists.
The current implementation has the restriction th
Hey,
Kevin Teague wrote:
And it would also be really nice
if the Grok terminology and release methods lined up with the Zope 3
terminology and release methods :)
Grok got there first, then KGS came along and did a lot of stuff. The
reason Grok's story is not the same as the one in KGS is tha
Hey,
On Feb 1, 2008 11:52 PM, Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stephan Richter wrote:
> > On Friday 01 February 2008, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> >> http://www.openplans.org/projects/zorg-redux
> >
> > This project does not seem to be public.
>
&g
Hey,
On Feb 1, 2008 8:59 PM, Paul Carduner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> I think the website is one of the huge impediments to joining the Zope
> community. When you compare zope.org to all the other web framework
> websites like django, turbogears, and RoR, it is pretty clear why
> people
Hey,
On Feb 1, 2008 6:11 PM, Stephan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 01 February 2008, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> > http://www.openplans.org/projects/zorg-redux
>
> This project does not seem to be public.
I don't know how it's been setup, but if y
Hey,
On Feb 1, 2008 6:04 PM, Christophe Combelles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> The transition seems now achieved and the most important thing is to have a
> dedicated web site with clear information, so that there are new users, and
> new
> contributors. When someone goes to the zope.org h
Hey,.
On Feb 1, 2008 4:09 PM, David Pratt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> It might be nice for the marketing of zope to give each set of eggs a
> nice name. Just using familiar mozilla names as an illustration, see how
> nice zope-thunderbird or zope-firefox look. So do away with the kgs in
>
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
That said, I suppose this should be either a conditional import or
moved to a higher level altogether.
- -1 to the conditional import; + 1 to moving the code.
Agree.
That sounds like the cleanest solution to me too.
Any idea on how this will be ac
Hey,
Ignas Mikalajunas wrote:
[REST in Grok]
In SchoolTool we used to start another server for REST to have a
different Publication for REST calls. As now I have started using
Paste to start up schooltool, and paste does not support 2 Zope3
servers running on different ports using the same WSGI
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
So, what's the plan to clean up this mess? Can the Plone specific
stuff be cleared up from the branches into a Plone-specific package
and a new release be made that works for both Plone and the rest of
the Zope world?
I thought i
Hi there,
So, I am trying to look at five.customerize in the context of Silva. I
look at the SVN, and see the trunk is significantly older than various
Plone-related branches. Hm, odd.
I thought, let's download the 0.2 sources from the cheeseshop. I
download them. Find out that they have dep
Hey,
Christian Zagrodnick wrote:
a couple of weeks ago there was some discussion about the skin/layer
support for XML-RPC which I implemented without asking (shame on me). As
some time has passed now everybody could have some fresh thoughts about it.
Let me first summarise:
* Skin and layer
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Mikhail Kashkin wrote:
Looks like open source developers, especial Zope 3, have enough money to
buy Time machine. Check Zope 3 profile on Ohloh.net
http://www.ohloh.net/projects/4495?p=Zope+3
Codebase 138,855,676 LOC
Effort (est.) 49267 Person Years
$2,
Hi there,
On Nov 20, 2007 11:24 AM, Chris Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > Traditional Zope 2 doesn't work that way: as soon as you make a call
> > from your Python script, the underlying code that is being called is
> > trusted. No proxies anywhere (well, except the ubiquitous acquis
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
On 20 Nov 2007, at 00:15 , Chris Withers wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
On 19 Nov 2007, at 20:26 , Chris Withers wrote:
So, I'm guessing RestrictedPython is the one to aim for?
No idea what you need...
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/20
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Friday 16 November 2007, Jim Fulton wrote:
Something is broken here and it needs to be fixed.
Well, the easiest solution would be to remove those misbehaving distributions
from the cheeseshop.
However, I think we kid ourselves if we think that the cheeseshop will a
Hi there,
I just wrote an article about the ages of Zope and the age I think we
find ourselves in now on my blog. Enjoy, and I'd be happy to hear
comments on it:
http://faassen.n--tree.net/blog/view/weblog/2007/11/15/0
Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope-D
Hi there,
On Nov 13, 2007 9:45 PM, Martijn Pieters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 2007 9:33 PM, Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > What do people think? Should this be fixed?
>
> This came up before in a bug report on Launchpad, and it was de
Hi there,
In zope.publisher.http, the status string for 200 is defined to be 'Ok',
instead of 'OK', which is in the HTTP spec. Now status messages may,
according to the spec, be replaced by 'local equivalents' without
affecting the protocol, and the status messages in the spec are just
exampl
Hey,
On Nov 12, 2007 12:02 AM, Stephan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Like Linux distributions, there will be a KGS for every Zope 3
> release. I have already requested a new directory called "zope-dev" where new
> feature releases can be tested.
Okay, I didn't understand that KGS is
Hey,
On Nov 11, 2007 10:34 PM, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Nov 11, 2007, at 2:06 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
>
> > This breaks a fundamental assumption for releases. When I release
> > something, I expect it to work tomorrow, next month, and next
Hi there,
I've been doing some more thinking about external version indexes (like
Grok's versions.cfg on a URL, and like KGS) and why they won't solve all
our problems. I have a new way to express it, so let me try it out on
you all.
What KGS solves is that it allows the ongoing development
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
[snip]
Only the '==' qualifier in setup.py is a bad idea because it locks you
down. Other qualifiers are actually quite necessary sometimes.
Agreed.
In addition hopefully at some point we'll get 'or' support, so you can
use == again:
zope.i18nmessageid >= 3.
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
[snip]
So you're telling me that in order to define my own KGS (which anybody
should do for a serious project), I'll have to start deploying my own
index. For each project?
I think Grok should be using KGS by simply taking snapshots of it
sometimes and then bu
Roger Ineichen wrote:
Hi Tres
Whoever released those two eggs (the '.dev-r#' ones) need
to release "real" updated packages, and then grok 0.11.1
should be released using them.
DEATH TO FAUX PACKAGES!
As far as I understand, this does not happen if you
depend on a KGS, right?
Does th
Hi everybody,
The Grok team is happy to announce the release of Grok 0.11! Grok is
a web application framework built with Zope 3 technologies that aims
to be easy to use.
Grok 0.11 is a feature release of Grok, introducing important new features:
* Layers and skinning support. It is now easy to
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Log message for revision 81348:
Optimized un/registerUtility via storing an optimized data structure
for
efficient retrieval of already registered utilities. This avoids
looping over
all utilities when registering a
Hey,
[making Zope 2 work on Python 2.5]
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
[snip]
I believe this is a critical issue and the interested parts need to
work together on it. Maybe the Plone Foundation and the Zope
Foundation can work together and setup a bounty to fund some developer
to do this work?
That's
Alexander Limi wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:29:36 -0700, Andreas Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The recommendation is still "System python is evil, evil, evil" (quoting
Jim).
Sure, but if you ever want to be able to tell users to do:
easy_install plone
to get their Plone site, it's a nece
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Log message for revision 81348:
Optimized un/registerUtility via storing an optimized data structure for
efficient retrieval of already registered utilities. This avoids looping over
all utilities when registering a new one.
You are changing what looks like persis
Hey,
On 10/24/07, Tres Seaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
> > Take a library that registers views (multi adapters) as widgets for
> > form fields, for instance. Do you consider this to be an
> > application-like library? I consider this
Hello,
On 10/24/07, Chris McDonough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> I think maybe more abstractly, it might be useful to think about
> separating based on libraries vs. applications. Libraries should be
> as policy-free as possible (otherwise they're not libraries, they're
> applications). A
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Log message for revision 80945:
Moved two implements declarations from Five into the proper classes.
I object to this change. HTTPRequest does not really fulfil the
IBrowserRequest interface, and ObjectManager
Hey,
On 10/20/07, Dieter Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Zope 2 had (for products) all three things together.
>
> It was felt that this was a too tight coupling. Therefore, for Zope 3
> the paradigma "explicit is better than implicit" (a paradigma, that I
> personally dislike and find w
Hey,
On 10/20/07, Lennart Regebro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/20/07, Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'd say it is a general concern of a framework to try to avoid how often
> > you need to repeat yourself. Right now you to use a Zope
Hey,
On 10/20/07, Tres Seaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
> > Since this appears to be a rare case that is the exception, what about
> > using the new ZCML exclude framework for this case? You need to know
> > what you are doing, but this
Fred Drake wrote:
On 10/17/07, Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Right - but you're building an application, and you're pretty
experienced with Zope. A lot of Plone users just want to install a
plug-in (a product), basically. Before, they just dropped it into a
It sounds like your conce
Tres Seaver wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
[snip]
So I turned things around: if I state in my egg information that I
require another package that means I need to have that package
available and functional. Which suggests that its zcml has to be loaded
before mine. And that is exactly what I am
Hey,
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Fred Drake wrote:
[snip]
For example, say you want to install oi.plum. You need to add the line
'oi.plum' twice - once under 'eggs' and once under 'zcml' in your
buildout.cfg. Forget the latter, and the package doesn't work properly
(or at all).
I actually really li
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Saturday 06 October 2007 13:14, Andreas Jung wrote:
You are using 7 times the term "Zope2" and 9 times "Zope 3"
and also "Plone 3.0" in this small text. Can you try to describe
this without "2 or 3" in "Zope *"? I guess not, right?
s/Zope 2/Zope application server
s/Zo
Jim Fulton wrote:
There's work going on to create a second version of WSGI. Last time, we
didn't pay much attention until WSGI was a done deal. This time, I
think it would be better if we were involved earlier. Unfortunately, I
don't have time to pay attention. Does anyone else?
I don't.
Jim Fulton wrote:
This would basically involve retiring the zope3-dev list and moving
zope3 developers to the zope-dev list.
+1
I sense in my lobes that I'm in favor of this. :)
Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://m
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
Great idea! We should try this. Hanno? :)
Yep, we can try that one too. I thought I remembered people reporting
bugs about the multiple Products directories at some point, but I cannot
remember where that was exactly. I only did go for
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
On 1/18/07, Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Considering installation of Products we're in new territory anyway -
they're not eggs, after all. I see in the result of ploneout that they
get symlinked into the Products directory - will that
Hey,
I only caught this message earlier today, but this is really cool! It's
really nice to see some zope 2 recipes and I hope they indeed will end
up on svn.zope.org soon!
Your workingenv recipe sounds very interesting and I should try this
soon. Does it allow easy_install to be used as wel
Dieter Maurer wrote:
I tried to use Zope3 events to get informed when requests start and end.
One of our modules (the interface module to "jpype") requires such
a notification for reliable work. Therefore, it tried to register
the corresponding subscriptions on import of this module.
Unfortunate
Christopher Lozinski wrote:
At the risk of going down in history (and Google Searches) as the man
who supports ZClasses, I think that someone deserves to come to their
defense.
I think that there is a different tool for every job. Sometimes I think
Plone is the best solution, sometimes Zope
Hey,
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
[snip]
Thoughts?
I don't have time for a discussion right now as I'm off to Germany soon.
The one thought that strikes me is that these release management notes,
when finalized, should be in some clear, findable, well-known and
maintained location. Othe
Benji York wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
What do you think about a 9 month release cycle?
If we can't manage a 6 month cycle, 9 months is the longest release
cycle I think is acceptable.
Agreed. I'd like to avoid longer than 9 months too.
Personally I think we should ju
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 12. September 2006 13:06:05 +0200 Martijn Faassen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 12. September 2006 12:28:10 +0200 Martijn Faassen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
Anyway, if the main thing holding up *this* release is bugfixes,
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 12. September 2006 12:28:10 +0200 Martijn Faassen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
Anyway, if the main thing holding up *this* release is bugfixes, doing a
new release in 3 months shouldn't be a problem, as after all, we've
already fixed those bugs
Andreas Jung wrote:
since we are three month late with the current releas, it would make
sense to reschedule Zope 2.11/3.4 for July (or was it June) next yr?!
Is the reasoning here that since a release cycle has taken 9 months, so
should the next? I'm not convinced expanding the release cycle i
Max M wrote:
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
Regarding: "I'm starting to get bored of people complaining about Zope"
Being a full time active Zope developer (as in developing with zope) for
at least 7 year, having contributed code, libraries, documentation and
products, I believe I have earned the rig
Tres Seaver wrote:
[scrap zpkg for Zope 2]
+1
Regards,
Martijn
___
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/
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Florent Guillaume wrote:
Florent Guillaume wrote:
So here's a proposal: how about having the following order:
- __bobo_traverse__
- unacquired attribute
- zope 3 views
- acquired attributes
Attach
Florent Guillaume wrote:
On 20 Jun 2006, at 13:23, Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
We've actually noticed Five 1.2.4 is not compatible with Five 1.2 in
some way to do with mysterious 'index.html' bits appearing after URLs
where we thought they shouldn't. We haven't
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Florent Guillaume wrote:
Florent Guillaume wrote:
So here's a proposal: how about having the following order:
- __bobo_traverse__
- unacquired attribute
- zope 3 views
- acquired attributes
Attached is the current diff I'm working with (for Zope 2.10).
Hey, c
Chris Withers wrote:
[snip]
One of my other bugbears is that a flood of deprecation warnings often
masks real problems.
What real problems?
How would people feel about the default zope.conf hiding all deprecation
warning?
-1
This is bad. You'd be making it far less likely people will worry
Chris Withers wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
+1
Extending the maintenance period for older branches indeed sounds like
a good idea.
Hang on, that makes things even worse for the already-stressed
developers though. The branches there are combined with the longer
they're stable for
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 16 Jun 2006, at 10:28, Andreas Jung wrote:
My recommendation:
1 yr deprecation period as it is now
1 yr + X maintenance period for older branches.
+1
Extending the maintenance period for older branches indeed sounds li
Chris Withers wrote:
[snip]
Personally, I find non-time-based releases a much nicer prospect: you
only need to move to the next major version when it's ready and because
it contains big new features you really want.
Who is going to develop these big features? What's the motivation? I'm
not go
Chris Withers wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
So this is not a problem with deprecation period, time based releases
or anything else, then.
No, but the slew of deprecation warnings, proliferation of branches that
need to be supported (regardless of whether they're "officially"
production or n
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 11:47:13AM -0400, Chris McDonough wrote:
I think that's the sanest policy. So it's OK if "bullshit" gets
called on people putting deprecation warnings into any .1, .2, etc
through .9 releases, then? This seems like the only thing that can
work.
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
The feature freeze date for the June release is only days away. It was
planned to be May 1st, but due to lots of pending branches, we might let
it slip for a *couple* of days (not more!).
I've compiled a rough list of outstanding tasks for Zope 2.10:
http://www.z
Hi there,
i18n doesn't actually work for things marked as 'structure' in a page
template in both Zope 2 and Zope 3. Zope 2 does do this with
PlacelessTranslationService (through some tortuous route I won't go
into). I think in practice large systems such as Plone, Silva and CPS
are all transl
Martin Aspeli wrote:
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 15:42:34 +0100, whit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
to echo Martijn, I've learned much more about zope3 thumbing through
the z3 bundled with Zope 2 than I have looking at actual zope3 source,
because I don't have a job that pays me to do pure zope3.
I wou
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
[snip]
The real goal behind all this is to make the security machinery in Zope
2 understand the ILocation API so that you won't *have to* rely on
Acquisition (but instead can use ILocation). Of course, you would still
be able to use Acquisition.
Yes, that would
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
As for the extractor: it can very well be used for other projects than
Zope 3. As you said, you guys are using it for the CMF. I would
therefore still suggest moving it to zope.i18n.
We've been using a slightly forked version for Silva for quite a while.
I fo
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Well, CMFonFive uses zope.app.publisher.browser, because that's where
the menus hang.
We would like to start using browser menus in Plone
I was asking about current usage, not pious new years resolutions :).
This is the
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
we don't really want to ship all of zope.app with Zope 2. zope.app is
supposed to be the Zope 3 application server. It shouldn't be included
in Zope 2, especially since it requires twiste
Hi everybody,
Just to sketch out my general points to be clear:
* I'm fine with a Zope 3 project that moves things from zope.app into zope.
* I'm also fine with Zope 2 usage guiding which things should be moved
first.
* I'm not fine with a Zope 2 shipping with only parts of the
library-like
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Well, CMFonFive uses zope.app.publisher.browser, because that's where
the menus hang.
We would like to start using browser menus in Plone
I was asking about current usage, not pious new years resolutions :).
This is the wrong attitude. C
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
we don't really want to ship all of zope.app with Zope 2. zope.app is
supposed to be the Zope 3 application server. It shouldn't be included
in Zope 2, especially since it requires twisted and such.
I'm worried about this approach, as it stops the Five project f
Hi there,
Geoff Davis wrote:
I am very glad to see that Jim's efforts to better articulate a vision for
Zope have generated so much interest. I am not so sure that the
discussion has been an entirely productive one.
I think that we as a community would benefit by working on our social
engin
Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
I wasn't trying to define app server. I was describing the Zope app
server.
As long as you realize you do risk confusion even by saying 'Zope app
server'. To me, Zope 3 is an app server, so when you say 'the Zope app
server' will include its functionalities too.
Re
Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
I think that having one name for two radically different, though related,
things is very confusing. There are really
2 main technologies that people care about:
1. The Zope app server. This is characterized by things like an object
file system, through-the-web scripti
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
Sounds like the original vision of Zope 3 without the X. I thought we
never got around to developing this stuff the last time.
Actually, no. We originally said that we would provide a transition
path. I said over and over that this was *not
901 - 1000 of 1205 matches
Mail list logo
