Martijn Faassen wrote at 2004-4-24 22:49 +0200:
...
In
practice right now the picture is 'Use all of the CMF or none of it'.
No, not really...
We use SkinsTool, ActionsTool and DCWorkflow a lot,
MembershipTool sometimes and most other tools not at all.
--
Dieter
Lennart Regebro wrote:
A lot of the things that are CMF should have been put into Zope core.
Agreed, that'd been a lot better. The CMF is a framework. It'd be nicer
if it'd been a set of independent components. Then Silva (for instance)
could've used more of what's in the CMF than is possible
From: Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I do not believe you.
But I believe him. :-)
If Zope has a steep lurning curve, that's nothing compared with CMF. There
are many good things with CMF, the actions are a good idea, DCWorkflow of
course, and some more. But
portal_skins are a
Lennart Regebro wrote:
From: Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I do not believe you.
But I believe him. :-)
Adding more framework code to a project as large as Zope already is,
is adding complexity. It might help you get your project done faster,
because the new tools are better suited to
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 10:57:18AM +0200, Lennart Regebro wrote:
| A lot of the things that are CMF should have been put into Zope core.
| DCWorkflow should have been there. acl_user folder should have been extended
| with property management and other member management instead of shimming
| tools
Lennart Regebro wrote at 2004-4-23 10:57 +0200:
From: Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I do not believe you.
But I believe him. :-)
If Zope has a steep lurning curve, that's nothing compared with CMF.
Usually, I am able to explain CMF to my colleagues in something
like a few hours (I do this
Andre Meyer wrote:
I have been developing for Zope for about half a year now and it took
considerable effort to get anything going.
I would suggest that's because you chose to use what are, imho, overly complex
products ;-)
With respect to CMS, Plone archetypes are too simplistic for complex
Terry Hancock wrote at 2004-4-21 09:39 -0500:
...
I've been developing an application, which has taken about two years, largely
because developing in the Zope 2 Framework model is like beating your head
against the wall constantly.
That's probably because I'm writing a fundamentally complex web
Joachim Werner wrote at 2004-4-21 21:24 +0200:
...
Believe me or not, almost everything gets
more complicated with CMF/Plone than with plain Zope.
I do not believe you.
We have used CMF (mostly the SkinsTool, the ActionsTool and DCWorkflow)
very successfully to build
* an editorial system
I've come to the unfortunate conclusion that Zope.org is just not going
to cut it to do Zope Book development work due to its speed (or lack
thereof).
I'd like to help fix the Zope.org slowness problem, but I'm a little
unclear about what's required for me to get the level of access required
to
On Thursday 22 April 2004 05:22 pm, Dieter Maurer wrote:
Writing a fundamentally complex web application within 2 months work
is quite impressive, isn't it?
Apparently, the framework is not too bad...
Ya' think? I thought it just meant I kicked ass. :-D
No, seriously Zope is great. But it's
Martin Kretschmar wrote:
Maik Jablonski of the german speaking Zope Users Group
DZUG issued a pretty bleak outlook for the future of
Zope. What are your oppinions?
Maik's having a bad day, he'll get over it ;-)
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting
-
Well, Maik has more than a bad day. In fact, he is rather right about
the points he raises!
I have been developing for Zope for about half a year now and it took
considerable effort to get anything going. I have experience with
filesystem-based Zope 2 products, Plone and Archteypes and a bit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 21 April 2004 11:53, Andre Meyer is believed to have said:
Well, Maik has more than a bad day. In fact, he is rather right about
the points he raises!
I have been developing for Zope for about half a year now and it took
considerable
is there an URL for the original?
Martin Kretschmar wrote:
Hello,
Maik Jablonski of the german speaking Zope Users Group
DZUG issued a pretty bleak outlook for the future of
Zope. What are your oppinions?
Here comes the translation of his oppoion:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic
my nz$ 0.02 worth
- is the future bleak? nothing seems to awry to me, this copy you
pasted has no basis for argument - why even bother pasting it
- for some upgrades of zope 2.* I need to rethink some rather
understandable aspects of my zope products - each one appears to be a
migration to
On Wednesday 21 April 2004 03:58, Martin Kretschmar wrote:
Maik Jablonski of the german speaking Zope Users Group
DZUG issued a pretty bleak outlook for the future of
Zope. What are your oppinions?
I think Chris is right to say that Maik had a bad day. If not, and if he is
serious about his
On Wednesday 21 April 2004 03:58, Martin Kretschmar wrote:
Maik Jablonski of the german speaking Zope Users Group
DZUG issued a pretty bleak outlook for the future of
Zope. What are your oppinions?
To not make the previous mail too long, here my general opinion.
1. Maik likes to do things the
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Wednesday 21 April 2004 03:58, Martin Kretschmar wrote:
-- snip --
2. Maik is is frustrated with the releases of both Zope 2 and Zope 3,
including their merging.
-- snip --
The situation is even more obvious with the Zope book. All the community has
to do is to give
On Wednesday 21 April 2004 05:52 am, Eckart Hertzler wrote:
I don't agree.
I am new to zope. So I tried zope2 first, because plone had a lot of appeal.
I got discouraged very quickly, because zope2 is so very grown over a time
it's hard to join later.
Zope3 seemed quite well documented and
On Wednesday 21 April 2004 10:18, Peter Sabaini wrote:
The situation is even more obvious with the Zope book. All the community
has to do is to give a particular part/chapter/section to a couple of
people for maintenance. But oh wait, that would need someone to manage
this effort and
On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 04:18:17PM +0200, Peter Sabaini wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Wednesday 21 April 2004 03:58, Martin Kretschmar wrote:
-- snip --
2. Maik is is frustrated with the releases of both Zope 2 and Zope 3,
including their merging.
-- snip --
The situation is
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 10:18, Peter Sabaini wrote:
That being said, I wonder if there are people interested to make an
effort for a 2.7 Edition of the Zope book?
I am. I think Paul is too. It won't be nearly as much work as 2.5 -
2.6. Let's just do it. Wanna pick chapters? I'll get the new
Chris McDonough wrote:
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 10:18, Peter Sabaini wrote:
That being said, I wonder if there are people interested to make an
effort for a 2.7 Edition of the Zope book?
I am. I think Paul is too. It won't be nearly as much work as 2.5 -
2.6. Let's just do it. Wanna pick
I've set up a development BackTalk sandbox for the 2.7 edition of the
Zope book at http://zope.org/Documentation/Books/ZopeBook/2_7Edition.
Currently it's just an exact copy of the 2.6 Edition book (comments and
all). I think the plan should be for people to:
1. take ownership of a chapter or
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 14:10, Peter Sabaini wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 10:18, Peter Sabaini wrote:
Ok then...
I think the following issues would deserve attention:
* Installing chapter: I'm working on it and hope to finish soon (no
really this time!)
Cool,
Sigh. I think I stressed Zope.org to its breaking point by creating a
Wiki page. It's down.
- C
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 14:13, Chris McDonough wrote:
I've set up a development BackTalk sandbox for the 2.7 edition of the
Zope book at http://zope.org/Documentation/Books/ZopeBook/2_7Edition.
Chris McDonough wrote:
I've set up a development BackTalk sandbox for the 2.7 edition of the
Zope book at http://zope.org/Documentation/Books/ZopeBook/2_7Edition.
Currently it's just an exact copy of the 2.6 Edition book (comments and
all). I think the plan should be for people to:
1. take
On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 02:13:30PM -0400, Chris McDonough wrote:
I've set up a development BackTalk sandbox for the 2.7 edition of the
Zope book at http://zope.org/Documentation/Books/ZopeBook/2_7Edition.
Currently it's just an exact copy of the 2.6 Edition book (comments and
all).
Also,
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 14:52, Paul Winkler wrote:
Why don't we use the project CVS at sourceforge?
http://sourceforge.net/cvs/?group_id=21038
I see you're an admin there.
I'm +0 on the idea.. if you and Peter are more comfortable with it than
using BackTalk, I'll set it up. It's just
Hi!
I am not too active on the Zope mailing lists any more because there is
not too much time left for it. But this thread asks for a comment. So
here it is:
First of all, I am not sure if the release policy of Zope 3, and the
whole concept of doing a complete rewrite was right or wrong, but
On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 08:10:26PM +0200, Peter Sabaini wrote:
* Reference: IMHO one of the trickier things, especially for the API
Ref. because one would first have to decide what constitutes the API and
what is simply Zope core...
The long-term solution, I think, is to fix the API mess
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 08:10:26PM +0200, Peter Sabaini wrote:
* Reference: IMHO one of the trickier things, especially for the API
Ref. because one would first have to decide what constitutes the API and
what is simply Zope core...
The long-term solution, I think, is to
33 matches
Mail list logo
