Rocky Burt wrote:
On Fri, 2006-03-03 at 09:30 +0100, Max M wrote:
Benji York wrote:
If we want people outside of the zope community to use these components,
they should not have the word "zope" anywhere in their name. If it says
"zope" people will *always* assume it is for use only with/ins
On Fri, 2006-03-03 at 09:30 +0100, Max M wrote:
> Benji York wrote:
> > If we want people outside of the zope community to use these components,
> > they should not have the word "zope" anywhere in their name. If it says
> > "zope" people will *always* assume it is for use only with/inside Zope
Benji York wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Good point. There's the question: Does this "zed" thing need a different
name at all? If we want other people to pick it up, then it seems like a
good idea to distinguish it from Zope-the-app-server. Paul seems to
suggest that in his response.
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:33:05 -, Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I don't see how *saying* what Zope 5 will contain will make it *exist*
any time sooner. These sound like useful evolution proposals for Zope 2
and Zope 3 to me...
The current story of Zope 2, Five and Zope 3 ge
Tres Seaver wrote:
[snip]
In this vision, the Zope 3 project should stay where it is and push
things forward. That doesn't mean Five should be ignored by Zope 3
developers, but it should be compartmentalized in people's minds. Zope 3
does innovation, Five does integration, and then the big codeba
On 2/28/06, Tres Seaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the other major point is the "door #2" proposal takes pressure
> off of Zope3: under that regime, Zope3 does not need to grow all the
> features present in Zope2, which door #1 *does* imply.
I still would like to know wich these missin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Max M wrote:
>
>> Jim Fulton wrote:
>>
>>> 2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
>>
>>
>>
>> Zope 2 is complicated! It has too many layers of everything.
>>
>> The reason for Zope 3 is to make it simpler for dev
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
1) Our current vision (AFAIK) is that Zope 3 will eventually
replace Zope 2
2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
As you probably know already, I am -1 on the second proposal, since it will
disallow us to finally get r
--On 28. Februar 2006 16:06:55 +0100 Philipp von Weitershausen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think focusing on one app server and a dedicated set of libraries
would be a good alternative to two concurring app servers.
+1
-aj
pgpe9Th17c7O9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Max M wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
Zope 2 is complicated! It has too many layers of everything.
The reason for Zope 3 is to make it simpler for developers.
Therefore I believe that any succesfull strategy would require Zope 3 to
be usable c
Max M wrote:
> Jim Fulton wrote:
>
>> 2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
>
> Zope 2 is complicated! It has too many layers of everything.
Layers are good, when they reliably hide complexity.
> The reason for Zope 3 is to make it simpler for developers.
Yep. 14'30'' wikis and su
Max M said the following on 2006-02-27 17:26:
Jim Fulton wrote:
2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
Zope 2 is complicated! It has too many layers of everything.
read the full sentence that Jim wrote:
> 2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
>
...
>
> N
12 matches
Mail list logo
