Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Why would they switch to Zope 2.8 if not for the component architecture?
To stay current? To get MVCC? To get new-style extension classes, and
thus access to many modern Python features. Later releases will pro
Jim Fulton wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Why would they switch to Zope 2.8 if not for the component architecture?
To stay current? To get MVCC? To get new-style extension classes, and
thus access to many modern Python features. Later releases will provide
benefits beyond just the Z3 fea
Jim Fulton wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Based on recent discussions, I've created a proposal:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/RenameTheZopePackage
to rename the "zope" package to "z". Unless there are strong
objections, we'll do this after we move the Zope reposito
| I had thought about exactly this idea during the weekend but I thought
| the "z" alternative had such traction that it wasn't worth mentioning.
| The only difference is that I thought about renaming Zope to ZopeClassic
| or ZopeLegacy instead of Zope2 (keeping version numbers out of packages
| an
+1
I had thought about exactly this idea during the weekend but I thought
the "z" alternative had such traction that it wasn't worth mentioning.
The only difference is that I thought about renaming Zope to ZopeClassic
or ZopeLegacy instead of Zope2 (keeping version numbers out of packages
and all
Jim Fulton wrote:
Based on recent discussions, I've created a proposal:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/RenameTheZopePackage
to rename the "zope" package to "z". Unless there are strong
objections, we'll do this after we move the Zope repository head to
subversion at the end of the month.
I've gotten
