[Zope-dev] Re: ZClassNG and ProductNG proposal

2007-04-26 Thread Max M

Andreas Jung skrev:


He's trying to reinvent wheels? Reads a bit like GrokNG :-)


And reinventing the wheel is bad?

I believe that pirelli or firestone has a larger market than Zope. And 
they do nothing but.


Besides, my car would suck with stone wheels at 100MPH. Well probably 
allready at 1MPH.


Reinventing the wheel as something bad, is only bad as a metaphor

;-)

--

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 )


Re: [Zope-dev] Re: ZClassNG and ProductNG proposal

2007-04-26 Thread Andreas Jung



--On 26. April 2007 14:10:49 +0200 Max M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Andreas Jung skrev:


He's trying to reinvent wheels? Reads a bit like GrokNG :-)


And reinventing the wheel is bad?


It depends on *who* is trying to reinvent wheels :-)
I just have some feeling about the quality of the new wheel when I know
who is working on it. Look at Microsoft...they tried to reinvent the
MP3 player...and what came out of it...yet another MP3 player without
outstanding feature...hope you got my point :)

Andreas


pgpFb1Sp7omDV.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 )


[Zope-dev] Re: ZClassNG and ProductNG proposal

2007-04-21 Thread Martin Aspeli

Christopher Lozinski wrote:
I think I have figured out how to do it.   This looks like a ZMI based 
ZClass, you can define it through the ZMI, you can add instance 
variables, you can add instance methods, all through the ZMI,  but you 
can change inheritance, because it is really a product created on the 
file system.


If there is such an easy translation from ZMI-based ZClass to filesystem 
product, then why not write the filesystem product in the first place?



Check out the proposal.
http://wiki.zope.org/zope2/ZClassesNGAndProductNG


... the names ZClassNG and ProductNG (especially the latter) are bad, to 
begin with, but oh well. You wouldn't be the first. :)


You're assuming there is an obvious one-to-one mapping between ZClass 
syntax and non-ZClass products on the filesystem, which may or may not 
be true.


You're relying on code generation, so you'll run into trouble when the 
two versions (ZODB and filesystem) diverge for whatever reason (someone 
edited the code, say).


Also, Zope needs a restart to load a new product, which will mess with 
the workflow.


But the bigger picture here is that an awful lot of people are telling 
you that spending your time on this is a bad idea, that you'll probably 
find it more difficult than you imagine, and that if you are going to 
invent new things, your time may be better spent pulling the same 
direction that most other people are.


By all means, give it a go, but you will probably find it difficult to 
get help when you are stuck because (a) no-one else seems to care and 
(b) not many other people seem to even know how this should work.


Martin

___
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: ZClassNG and ProductNG proposal

2007-04-21 Thread Andreas Jung



--On 22. April 2007 02:52:58 +0100 Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Christopher Lozinski wrote:

I think I have figured out how to do it.   This looks like a ZMI based
ZClass, you can define it through the ZMI, you can add instance
variables, you can add instance methods, all through the ZMI,  but you
can change inheritance, because it is really a product created on the
file system.


If there is such an easy translation from ZMI-based ZClass to filesystem
product, then why not write the filesystem product in the first place?


Check out the proposal.
http://wiki.zope.org/zope2/ZClassesNGAndProductNG


... the names ZClassNG and ProductNG (especially the latter) are bad, to
begin with, but oh well. You wouldn't be the first. :)

You're assuming there is an obvious one-to-one mapping between ZClass
syntax and non-ZClass products on the filesystem, which may or may not be
true.


He's trying to reinvent wheels? Reads a bit like GrokNG :-)



You're relying on code generation, so you'll run into trouble when the
two versions (ZODB and filesystem) diverge for whatever reason (someone
edited the code, say).


Generating code is a one-way-road. Either your internal model is executable
somehow or better write the code by hand.



Also, Zope needs a restart to load a new product, which will mess with
the workflow.

But the bigger picture here is that an awful lot of people are telling
you that spending your time on this is a bad idea, that you'll probably
find it more difficult than you imagine, and that if you are going to
invent new things, your time may be better spent pulling the same
direction that most other people are.

By all means, give it a go, but you will probably find it difficult to
get help when you are stuck because (a) no-one else seems to care and (b)
not many other people seem to even know how this should work.



Amen. Sorry Christopher but the quality of this proposal is more than poor.

Andreas



pgpJF8ZPed2NO.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 )