Sidnei da Silva wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 10:53:01AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
snip
| I haven't decided
| which parts of Zope 3 should be included in Zope 2.8 and would like to
| get input. If you have suggestions on what to include or exclude,
| please respond here or on the z3-file list,
Jim Fulton wrote:
Paul Winkler wrote:
+1 on all of those from me. However, I will be satisfied with anything
that gets released as 2.8 sometime this year ;-)
Absolutely. The top priority, IMO, is getting 2.8 out as soon as
we can.
Excuse me, but it seems bizarre to me that *if* the top priority
Christian Heimes wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Originally, I had intended not to include any Zope 3 packages until
Zope 2.9, however, Zope 2.8 has been delayed long enough that I think
it makes sense to include some parts of Zope 3 sooner. I also want
to use some of the Zope 3 persistent code support,
Martijn Faassen wrote:
That's only to make things more easily deployable. Right now the hard
part is however detaching Zope 3 stuff from its dependencies
Really? That's extremely disappointing :-(
The most important aim of Zope 3 from my POV was to be able to use as
little or as much of it as
On Wednesday 02 February 2005 05:28, Chris Withers wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
That's only to make things more easily deployable. Right now the hard
part is however detaching Zope 3 stuff from its dependencies
Really? That's extremely disappointing :-(
The most important aim of Zope 3
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Wednesday 02 February 2005 05:28, Chris Withers wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
That's only to make things more easily deployable. Right now the hard
part is however detaching Zope 3 stuff from its dependencies
Really? That's extremely disappointing :-(
The most important
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Paul Winkler wrote:
+1 on all of those from me. However, I will be satisfied with anything
that gets released as 2.8 sometime this year ;-)
Absolutely. The top priority, IMO, is getting 2.8 out as soon as
we can.
Excuse me, but it seems bizarre to me
Martijn Faassen wrote:
...
Five has dependencies on zope.app, so to make Five use Zope 2.8 packages
would require quite a bit of Zope 3 to be pulled in, or an awful lot of
work to prevent it from being pulled in.
I think Zope 3 is at a point where, if there are volunteers, it would be
worthwhile
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
...
Five has dependencies on zope.app, so to make Five use Zope 2.8
packages would require quite a bit of Zope 3 to be pulled in, or an
awful lot of work to prevent it from being pulled in.
I think Zope 3 is at a point where, if there are volunteers, it
Christian Heimes wrote:
Zope 2.8 should be shipped with all stuff required for Five + some nice
gimmicks like the import* helpers from utilities/.
Here are the modules currently directly imported by Five. I'm not
counting the things that these modules in turn import:
zope.app
Would it make sense to have Zope 2.8 include all of the packages
below other than zope.app and for Five to supply it's own zope.app?
Jim
P.S. We definately want zope.testing too. I'm surprised
that Five isn't using it.
Lennart Regebro wrote:
Christian Heimes wrote:
Zope 2.8 should be shipped
Jim Fulton wrote:
P.S. We definately want zope.testing too. I'm surprised
that Five isn't using it.
Well, I didn't grep the tests directory. ;)
I'm leaning more towards realeasing 2,8 now, and skipping this renaming
thing alltogether. But then, I don't know your reason for wanting to do
it
Lennart Regebro wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
P.S. We definately want zope.testing too. I'm surprised
that Five isn't using it.
Well, I didn't grep the tests directory. ;)
I'm leaning more towards realeasing 2,8 now, and skipping this renaming
thing alltogether. But then, I don't know your
Jim Fulton wrote:
Would it make sense to have Zope 2.8 include all of the packages
below other than zope.app and for Five to supply it's own zope.app?
It would make life harder for Five, and create more work for us, as we'd
have to worry about:
* shipping a zope.app ourselves (does it contain
Jim Fulton wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
[snip]
I'm leaning more towards realeasing 2,8 now, and skipping this
renaming thing alltogether. But then, I don't know your reason for
wanting to do it in Zope 2.8, which I expect is a really good one (it
usually is).
I want zope.interface and
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Anyway, more work for Five developers doesn't mean this shouldn't
happen, but perhaps a review of the use cases driving this would be
helpful. If it's really only about making ZClasses work in Zope 2.8, is
this really the only way forward? If not, I'd prefer to stick to
--On Mittwoch, 2. Februar 2005 19:28 Uhr +0100 Lennart Regebro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree. Get Zope 2.8 out now and then we can work on the Z3 integration
in 2.9, preferrably merging Five into 2.9 completely. That integration
should be rather easy, as Five is already in a workable state,
17 matches
Mail list logo
