Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions?
Or Zed is the part of Zope that can be used without Zope. Yes, it's always been the Zed Object Publishing Environment. Now the Zed can get a job :-](I'm neutral regarding the suggestion.) -- jean ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions
Jim Fulton wrote: [snip] I wasn't trying to define app server. I was describing the Zope app server. As long as you realize you do risk confusion even by saying 'Zope app server'. To me, Zope 3 is an app server, so when you say 'the Zope app server' will include its functionalities too. Regards, Martijn ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions
Martijn Faassen wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: [snip] I think that having one name for two radically different, though related, things is very confusing. There are really 2 main technologies that people care about: 1. The Zope app server. This is characterized by things like an object file system, through-the-web scripting and/or development, pluggable course-grained add-ons, etc. I must warn you that what you call 'app server' is not what I call app server; I believe that using the word appserver for this set of technologies could be very confusing to people. I believe Zope 3 is an application server. I believe, say, Django is an application server too, even though as far as I know it lacks an object file system and through the web scripting. Can we find another word for what you mean? I wasn't trying to define app server. I was describing the Zope app server. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions
Jim Fulton wrote: Martijn Faassen wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: [snip] I think that having one name for two radically different, though related, things is very confusing. There are really 2 main technologies that people care about: 1. The Zope app server. This is characterized by things like an object file system, through-the-web scripting and/or development, pluggable course-grained add-ons, etc. I must warn you that what you call 'app server' is not what I call app server; I believe that using the word appserver for this set of technologies could be very confusing to people. I believe Zope 3 is an application server. I believe, say, Django is an application server too, even though as far as I know it lacks an object file system and through the web scripting. Can we find another word for what you mean? I wasn't trying to define app server. I was describing the Zope app server. Jim why not say that the Zope application server is based on the Z Foundation Libraries (ZFL) ? Z can be interpreted as being short name for Zope without creating a new name for it. which can also be interpreted as the libraries used by the zope foundation software (ZF)? /JM ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions
Martijn Faassen wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: Martijn Faassen wrote: [snip] Sounds like the original vision of Zope 3 without the X. I thought we never got around to developing this stuff the last time. Actually, no. We originally said that we would provide a transition path. I said over and over that this was *not* going to be backward compatibility. I guess this was too complex a message. I think your post proves that it was. I know exactly what was said, and we, the Zope community, said it wrong, including the backwards compatibility bit. I quote the release notes for Zope X3.0: The X in the name stands for experimental, since this release does not try to provide any backward-compatibility to Zope 2. What do you think that implied? Maybe you didn't say backwards compatibility, but our release notes certainly said something about this. This message wasn't new: 1b. Zope 3X is the preliminary version of Zope 3. It is built from the ground up, paying attention to the lessons learned from Zope 2 and CMF. It is not a product but intended to let developers get familiar with the new architecture early. 1c. Zope 3 is the mainline release intended for production use and including backwards compatibility to Zope 2. It was here: http://cvs.zope.org/Zope3/doc/security/background.rst?rev=1.3 It is frustrating that there were worded this way. If was never intended that we would promise backward compatibility. I certainly tried to be clear that there would be a transition path, not backward compatibility. But perhaps we are splitting hairs... I had a lot more to say in this posting which I recommend you read: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope3-dev/2006-February/017939.html You seem to be calling vaporware on even a transition path, implying that we shouldn't promise one. (BTW, vaporware is software that is described as if it exists, but doesn't. I don't think that applies to anything we are talking about here.) I think that a transition plan for Zope 2 applications is critical and something we should work toward. I don't see how *saying* what Zope 5 will contain will make it *exist* any time sooner. You seem to be arguing against a roadmap, which is puzzling. Obviously, predictions of the future are imperfect. I'm not arguing against a vision. You fooled me. I'm worried about marketing and what we will be implicitly implying. I want to be very careful about roadmaps as we can't guarantee they will happen, Of course we can't. and broken promises in this will be worse than no promises at all. I understand this. I'm more worried about roadmaps that aren't honest. That say we're working on something that we are not. I think, for now, our vision should be sketched with what we have right now (Zope 2 and Zope 3) and where we think they are going. Exactly. Talk about it names we already know, or if we really make new things, new names that are not Zope for the time being. We'll have to agree to disagree. [snip] The current story of Zope 2, Five and Zope 3 gets us in the right direction (Zope 5, if you want to call it that, though I would definitely want to introduce yet another name in the mix), step by step. We don't promise too much to people. We don't raise the wrong expecations anymore. What expectations did we raise? See my referenced mail: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope3-dev/2006-February/017939.html I think it was right to raise expectations for a transition plan. Also, as I understand Zope 3 better, I feel that bacward compatibility *is* possible, at least to the extent that Zope 2 releases are backward compatible today. AFAIK, the official story is that Zope 3 will eventually replace Zope 2 and that Zope 2 will be augmented with Zope 3 technology to make the transition easier. I don't think there are many people, if any, really working on making Zope 3 a credible replacement for Zope 2. There are people working on making it into something wonderful, but not a replacement for Zope 2. Do you agree that this is the current story? If not, and if *we* cannot agree on what the current story is, think how confused everyone else must be. I think that is indeed the current story. Cool, we agree on something ... It's not complete: I think it is also inaccurate, because I don't think people working on Zope 3 are really working to replace the functionality in Zope 2. In fact, most of the work on Zope 3 is not on Zope 3 itself, but on integrating it into Zope 2. Zope 3 technology is replacing Zope 2 today in that I can write a Zope 3-like application in Zope 2. In that sense, Zope 2.9 *is* the Zope 3 without X. Zope 3 technology is not only in Zope 2 for the transition, but also because it's cool stuff we can actually use profitably now, not only because we might be able to transition to Zope 3 more easily in some future. This is much closer to the new vision that I proposed than the current vision. I
Re: Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions?
On Thu, 2006-02-03 at 10:32 -0500, Stephan Richter wrote: On Thursday 02 March 2006 10:29, Stefane Fermigier wrote: Geoff Davis wrote: I think that the idea of giving Zed its own, distinct identity is great. I think it is stupid. Me too!! Not I. Particularly not if we want further adoption Zed outside of the zope community. And for the record, I could care less what the name is. But I do think someone in this thread made a good point -- having a name without zope will allow for much easier adoption by the rest of the python community. And isn't that what we're all here for? Profile: Zed, plays nice with others - Rocky -- Rocky Burt AdaptiveWave - Consulting, Training, and Content Management as a Service http://www.adaptivewave.com Content Management Made Simple ___ 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] Two visions?
On Thu, 2006-02-03 at 16:49 +0100, Paul Everitt wrote: I think Geoff's core point could be met by keeping the word Zope for the app server. I think Geoff's deeper point was to rethink the word used for the CA, which actually doesn't want to be thought of us an app server. +1 -- Rocky Burt AdaptiveWave - Consulting, Training, and Content Management as a Service http://www.adaptivewave.com Content Management Made Simple ___ 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] Two visions?
Geoff Davis wrote: No, I think I understood you. I was being sloppy in my use of language. I should have said something more like Zope 3 then becomes an application server built around the Zed library. Or Zed is the part of Zope that can be used without Zope. -- 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: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions
Jim Fulton wrote: Martijn Faassen wrote: [snip] Sounds like the original vision of Zope 3 without the X. I thought we never got around to developing this stuff the last time. Actually, no. We originally said that we would provide a transition path. I said over and over that this was *not* going to be backward compatibility. I guess this was too complex a message. I think your post proves that it was. I know exactly what was said, and we, the Zope community, said it wrong, including the backwards compatibility bit. I quote the release notes for Zope X3.0: The X in the name stands for experimental, since this release does not try to provide any backward-compatibility to Zope 2. What do you think that implied? Maybe you didn't say backwards compatibility, but our release notes certainly said something about this. This message wasn't new: 1b. Zope 3X is the preliminary version of Zope 3. It is built from the ground up, paying attention to the lessons learned from Zope 2 and CMF. It is not a product but intended to let developers get familiar with the new architecture early. 1c. Zope 3 is the mainline release intended for production use and including backwards compatibility to Zope 2. It was here: http://cvs.zope.org/Zope3/doc/security/background.rst?rev=1.3 I had a lot more to say in this posting which I recommend you read: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope3-dev/2006-February/017939.html [snip snip] I don't see how *saying* what Zope 5 will contain will make it *exist* any time sooner. You seem to be arguing against a roadmap, which is puzzling. Obviously, predictions of the future are imperfect. I'm not arguing against a vision. I'm worried about marketing and what we will be implicitly implying. I want to be very careful about roadmaps as we can't guarantee they will happen, and broken promises in this will be worse than no promises at all. I think, for now, our vision should be sketched with what we have right now (Zope 2 and Zope 3) and where we think they are going. Talk about it names we already know, or if we really make new things, new names that are not Zope for the time being. [snip] The current story of Zope 2, Five and Zope 3 gets us in the right direction (Zope 5, if you want to call it that, though I would definitely want to introduce yet another name in the mix), step by step. We don't promise too much to people. We don't raise the wrong expecations anymore. What expectations did we raise? See my referenced mail: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope3-dev/2006-February/017939.html AFAIK, the official story is that Zope 3 will eventually replace Zope 2 and that Zope 2 will be augmented with Zope 3 technology to make the transition easier. I don't think there are many people, if any, really working on making Zope 3 a credible replacement for Zope 2. There are people working on making it into something wonderful, but not a replacement for Zope 2. Do you agree that this is the current story? If not, and if *we* cannot agree on what the current story is, think how confused everyone else must be. I think that is indeed the current story. It's not complete: Zope 3 technology is replacing Zope 2 today in that I can write a Zope 3-like application in Zope 2. In that sense, Zope 2.9 *is* the Zope 3 without X. Zope 3 technology is not only in Zope 2 for the transition, but also because it's cool stuff we can actually use profitably now, not only because we might be able to transition to Zope 3 more easily in some future. I think part of this story is that the Zope 2 people will work on Zope 3-based technology to replace bits of Zope 2 step by step, bit by bit. I believe this is happening in the context of Five, the Zope 2 core (the event system), and the CMF. I think part of this story is also that Zope 2 is safe and is going to be around for a lng time. Emphasizing these bits of the story would be good, and I think we agree on that. We need to be careful though we also are seen to stay the course: introducing new version numbers and names of the mix is I think right now the wrong action to take. [snip] It won't contain the features you list unless someone actually does all that work. That's right. Someone needs to do the work. Similarly, Zope 3 won't be a replacement for Zope 2 unless someone does the work. What's your point? That we shouldn't plan? That we shouldn't have a common vision for where we're going, or communicate that vision? These are rhetorical questions... My point is: Have a vision, but plan step by step. Don't promote the presumed endpoint of the steps too much yet. Evolve the message step by step too. Change the message slowly, not all at once, to avoid creating confusion and unrest. Don't change the message before we're ready. Introducing a new message always carries a strong risk of being misunderstood. The alternative is to put Zope 5 in the nebulous future when all the work
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions
Jim Fulton wrote: [snip] I think that having one name for two radically different, though related, things is very confusing. There are really 2 main technologies that people care about: 1. The Zope app server. This is characterized by things like an object file system, through-the-web scripting and/or development, pluggable course-grained add-ons, etc. I must warn you that what you call 'app server' is not what I call app server; I believe that using the word appserver for this set of technologies could be very confusing to people. I believe Zope 3 is an application server. I believe, say, Django is an application server too, even though as far as I know it lacks an object file system and through the web scripting. Can we find another word for what you mean? Regards, Martijn ___ 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] Two visions?
Geoff Davis wrote: I think that the idea of giving Zed its own, distinct identity is great. I think it is stupid. We (Zope Corp + the Zope Community) have spent 8 years building the Zope brand, and you want to restart from scratch ? S. -- Stéfane Fermigier, Tel: +33 (0)6 63 04 12 77 (mobile). Nuxeo Collaborative Portal Server: http://www.nuxeo.com/cps Gestion de contenu web / portail collaboratif / groupware / open source! ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions?
On Thursday 02 March 2006 10:29, Stefane Fermigier wrote: Geoff Davis wrote: I think that the idea of giving Zed its own, distinct identity is great. I think it is stupid. Me too!! Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ 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] Two visions?
Geoff Davis wrote: +1 on Jim's suggestion #2. However, if I am understanding things correctly, it doesn't really sound like door #2 entails a huge deviation from from our current course of bringing Zope 2 and Zope 3 together gradually. I don't really care what the converged product is called, be it Zope 2.250 or Zope 3.99 or Zope 5. My take is that Jim is not really proposing anything all that different from what Martijn wants -- a gradual convergence of Zope 2 and 3. Rather, it sounds like the biggest changes in Jim's proposal #2 entail: 1) a change in how we _talk_ about what we are doing, and 2) an explicit attempt to factor out some of the Zope 3 goodness into a more generic, less-monolithic-app-server framework, Zed (or Z or ZomethingElse). Am I right here, Jim? Yup. Realizing that there are two distinc efforts (the app server and the collection of technologies) and making that distinction clear. I think that the idea of giving Zed its own, distinct identity is great. Zope 3 is a _huge_ overhaul and it needs to be obvious to the world that it is dramatically better than crufty old Zope 2. Zope 3 then becomes the Zed application server; Zope 2 is getting Zed retrofits via Five, and the two will eventually converge into Zope 5 (or Zope 2.27 or whatever). Ooops. OK I guess I was clear as mud. :) My idea for Z, pronounced zed or whatever the naming gods decide is that it was *not* an app server. It is an un-app-server. :) A collection of technologies that are useful by themselves, to support an app server and useful to build non-app-server applications, web or otherwise. I think that Z3 is better than Z2 in a lot of ways. I also think that Z2 is more mature and complete. I really want us to combine those efforts. I think we've achieved enough and learned enough with Zope 3 that we can now bring that to bear and make Zope 2 better, refactoring the cruft away and applying the lessons we've learned with Zope 3. (Note that Zope 3 is not crust free.) I don't really care what this thing ends up being called, except that it *must* be called Zope. A distinct Zed distribution could bring in developers who are just interested in using the component architecture but not necessarily a big app server stack. It would be cool to see Zed popping up in random python products or perhaps even in TurboGears / Django internals. And more than just cool -- the more people we can get using Zed, the more code we will be able to mix in easily to Zope (2/3/5) applications. This paragraph makes me think I was clear. Yes, we need to follow Ian Bicking's advice and release our technology in bite-sized chunks. I'm hopeful that the packaging efforts underway will lead to more of that. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ 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] Two visions?
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 10:38:03 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote: I think that the idea of giving Zed its own, distinct identity is great. Zope 3 is a _huge_ overhaul and it needs to be obvious to the world that it is dramatically better than crufty old Zope 2. Zope 3 then becomes the Zed application server; Zope 2 is getting Zed retrofits via Five, and the two will eventually converge into Zope 5 (or Zope 2.27 or whatever). Ooops. OK I guess I was clear as mud. :) My idea for Z, pronounced zed or whatever the naming gods decide is that it was *not* an app server. It is an un-app-server. :) A collection of technologies that are useful by themselves, to support an app server and useful to build non-app-server applications, web or otherwise. No, I think I understood you. I was being sloppy in my use of language. I should have said something more like Zope 3 then becomes an application server built around the Zed library. I think that Z3 is better than Z2 in a lot of ways. I also think that Z2 is more mature and complete. I really want us to combine those efforts. I think we've achieved enough and learned enough with Zope 3 that we can now bring that to bear and make Zope 2 better, refactoring the cruft away and applying the lessons we've learned with Zope 3. (Note that Zope 3 is not crust free.) I don't really care what this thing ends up being called, except that it *must* be called Zope. Yes, I agree. Zope is the app server. I think that is consistent with the past use of the brand. This paragraph makes me think I was clear. Yes, we need to follow Ian Bicking's advice and release our technology in bite-sized chunks. I'm hopeful that the packaging efforts underway will lead to more of that. Yes, and the use of the new name Z or Zed is a way to emphasize that the Zed library is NOT a big, monolithic app server; rather, it's something new and cool. Geoff ___ 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] Two visions?
Geoff Davis wrote: Yes, and the use of the new name Z or Zed is a way to emphasize that the Zed library is NOT a big, monolithic app server; rather, it's something new and cool. Zope 3 is new and cool. Or at least, let's spin it this way. Screencasts, podcasts, 14'59 wikis (quicker than TurboGears!), the whole sheebang. S. -- Stéfane Fermigier, Tel: +33 (0)6 63 04 12 77 (mobile). Nuxeo Collaborative Portal Server: http://www.nuxeo.com/cps Gestion de contenu web / portail collaboratif / groupware / open source! ___ 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] Two visions?
Stefane Fermigier wrote: Geoff Davis wrote: I think that the idea of giving Zed its own, distinct identity is great.. I think it is stupid. We (Zope Corp + the Zope Community) have spent 8 years building the Zope brand, and you want to restart from scratch ? Hehe, poor Geoff. :) In the past, the Zope community hasn't made it a *strategic* goal to play nice with other Python projects. In the past, the Zope community hasn't made it a goal to be a sea of autonomous components. Its goal has been: top-to-bottom app server. We now have (I think!) said those goals are now in scope. Those goals are currently being met using the same name as the assembly. Trying to achieve the goals of the components, using the same word as the assembly, might not be the best way to achieve those goals. The comments I got on my pro-Zope weblog post showed that, if we *do* care about these new goals, we should consider whether the name is a barrier *for the components*. Alternatively, we could say: The components should only be used in the Zope application server. Perhaps that's the goal. I think Geoff's core point could be met by keeping the word Zope for the app server. I think Geoff's deeper point was to rethink the word used for the CA, which actually doesn't want to be thought of us an app server. --Paul ___ 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] Two visions?
Geoff Davis wrote: On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 10:38:03 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote: I think that the idea of giving Zed its own, distinct identity is great. Zope 3 is a _huge_ overhaul and it needs to be obvious to the world that it is dramatically better than crufty old Zope 2. Zope 3 then becomes the Zed application server; Zope 2 is getting Zed retrofits via Five, and the two will eventually converge into Zope 5 (or Zope 2.27 or whatever). Ooops. OK I guess I was clear as mud. :) My idea for Z, pronounced zed or whatever the naming gods decide is that it was *not* an app server. It is an un-app-server. :) A collection of technologies that are useful by themselves, to support an app server and useful to build non-app-server applications, web or otherwise. No, I think I understood you. I was being sloppy in my use of language. I should have said something more like Zope 3 then becomes an application server built around the Zed library. Good clarification. I think that Z3 is better than Z2 in a lot of ways. I also think that Z2 is more mature and complete. I really want us to combine those efforts. I think we've achieved enough and learned enough with Zope 3 that we can now bring that to bear and make Zope 2 better, refactoring the cruft away and applying the lessons we've learned with Zope 3. (Note that Zope 3 is not crust free.) I don't really care what this thing ends up being called, except that it *must* be called Zope. Yes, I agree. Zope is the app server. I think that is consistent with the past use of the brand. Yep. This paragraph makes me think I was clear. Yes, we need to follow Ian Bicking's advice and release our technology in bite-sized chunks. I'm hopeful that the packaging efforts underway will lead to more of that. Yes, and the use of the new name Z or Zed is a way to emphasize that the Zed library is NOT a big, monolithic app server; rather, it's something new and cool. I think this brings up an interesting paradox in the discussion. We want Zope to continue being the name of an app server. But we also want the CA to be perceived as usable outside of an app server. Outside of Zope, even. Thus, we are using the same name used to convey: It *is* an app server! It's *not* an app server! I think this might be a contradiction and might be worth discussing. People have it set in their brain that Zope is a monolithic web application server. Hard to dispel that meme. --Paul ___ 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] Two visions?
Paul Everitt wrote: ... People have it set in their brain that Zope is a monolithic web application server. Hard to dispel that meme. Yup. I'd rather adjust the meme to: Zope is a agile flexible extensible app server with rich services. :) Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ 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] Two visions?
Stefane Fermigier wrote: I think that the idea of giving Zed its own, distinct identity is great. I think it is stupid. We (Zope Corp + the Zope Community) have spent 8 years building the Zope brand, and you want to restart from scratch ? 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. How about zopelib? E.g.: * import zopelib.session * ez_install zopelib.publisher * etc. Actually, Shane suggested this once: http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ZopeLibPackage Philipp ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions?
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. How about zopelib? 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 (Zope 2 more often than not). I've seen this when I've told people about testing their web apps with zope.testbrowser. Their first response is invariably oh, I can't use that; I'm not using Zope. Therefore, whatever the bag-o-components is named it should not contain zope. Z or zed would be OK with me (especially if we could come up with some decent domain names that are still available). -- Benji York Senior Software Engineer Zope Corporation ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions?
Benji York 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. How about zopelib? 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 (Zope 2 more often than not). I've seen this when I've told people about testing their web apps with zope.testbrowser. Their first response is invariably oh, I can't use that; I'm not using Zope. Therefore, whatever the bag-o-components is named it should not contain zope. Z or zed would be OK with me (especially if we could come up with some decent domain names that are still available). I agree. zopelib was just a compromise for the people who like to keep the zed thing somewhat associated with Zope-the-project whereas we don't want this to be associated too closely with Zope-the-application-server for the reasons you state above. In the end the question is where we draw the line in all of this. Philipp ___ 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] Two visions?
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 16:18:27 -, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Zope is a agile flexible extensible app server with rich services. You forgot Enterprise. Martin -- (muted) ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 11:00, Jim Fulton wrote: Zope 2 is more mature than Zope 3 in a lot of areas. WebDAV and process management are a couple of examples that occur to me off the top of my head. Except that Michael Kerrins recent WebDAV work will shaddow Zope 2's support. If I understand his improved implementation correctly, then it is very, very cool! Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 12:33, Martijn Faassen wrote: Are you kidding? No, I'm not kidding. +1 on the entire post from me too. And I would really like to see the questions he raised answered. We just recovered from this BBB overpromise, now we want to make another one. We also just started to position the Zope 3 name and software correctly in the market and now we are going to confuse people again. That is just plain stupid^M^M^M^M^M^Msilly. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 09:12:08AM -0500, Stephan Richter wrote: | On Tuesday 28 February 2006 11:00, Jim Fulton wrote: | Zope 2 is more mature than Zope 3 in a lot of areas. WebDAV | and process management are a couple of examples that occur to me | off the top of my head. | | Except that Michael Kerrins recent WebDAV work will shaddow Zope 2's support. | If I understand his improved implementation correctly, then it is very, very | cool! Did you run the litmus tests against it? :) BTW, I'm working on converting the full set of the litmus tests to a functional doctest, will check that in soon. -- Sidnei da Silva Enfold Systems, LLC. http://enfoldsystems.com ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 09:24, Sidnei da Silva wrote: | Except that Michael Kerrins recent WebDAV work will shaddow Zope 2's | support. If I understand his improved implementation correctly, then it | is very, very cool! Did you run the litmus tests against it? :) I don't know what that is, of course. :-) I think talking to Michael is the better choice here. :-) Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 09:29:05AM -0500, Stephan Richter wrote: | On Wednesday 01 March 2006 09:24, Sidnei da Silva wrote: | | Except that Michael Kerrins recent WebDAV work will shaddow Zope 2's | | support. If I understand his improved implementation correctly, then it | | is very, very cool! | | Did you run the litmus tests against it? :) | | I don't know what that is, of course. :-) I think talking to Michael is the | better choice here. :-) First hit: http://www.google.com/search?q=webdav+litmus+tests What you think about turning those into functional doctests? -- Sidnei da Silva Enfold Systems, LLC. http://enfoldsystems.com ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 09:32, Sidnei da Silva wrote: What you think about turning those into functional doctests? Of course a very, very big +1. :-) Though I woul split them up, so that we can only test features that we know we have implemented. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 14:32, Sidnei da Silva wrote: On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 09:29:05AM -0500, Stephan Richter wrote: | On Wednesday 01 March 2006 09:24, Sidnei da Silva wrote: | | Except that Michael Kerrins recent WebDAV work will shaddow Zope 2's | | support. If I understand his improved implementation correctly, then | | it is very, very cool! | | Did you run the litmus tests against it? :) | | I don't know what that is, of course. :-) I think talking to Michael is | the better choice here. :-) First hit: http://www.google.com/search?q=webdav+litmus+tests What you think about turning those into functional doctests? Never seen that before - found a bunch of bugs with it too :-) Thanks for the link Michael -- Michael Kerrin 55 Fitzwilliam Sq., Dublin 2. Tel: 087 688 3894 ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions
Martijn Faassen wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 17:29 +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: [snip] I see Zope 5 being a combination of Zope 2 and Zope 3, keeping the best of both. I think we already have Zope 5, and it's called Zope 2.9. Perhaps I'm wrong. If so, how does Zope 5 differ from Zope 2.9? Are you kidding? No, I'm not kidding. Zope 2.9 is the closest thing to Zope 5 that we have today, that people can work with. Zope 2.10 will hopefully be closer too, and so on. It is not very close. It is not close enough, IMO, to call it Zope 5. Zope 5 will be backward compatible with Zope 2 and Zope 3. It will allow configurations that look a lot like Zope 3. Sounds like the original vision of Zope 3 without the X. I thought we never got around to developing this stuff the last time. Actually, no. We originally said that we would provide a transition path. I said over and over that this was *not* going to be backward compatibility. I guess this was too complex a message. I think your post proves that it was. I saw Five as a key enabling technology for the transition. For some time, I said that Five would gradually narrow the gap between Zope 2 and Zope 3 until the transition would be very small. What changed? I assumed that Zope 3 would become more like Zope 2. That it would provide much the same features, if in somewhat different forms. This is still possible, but I don't really seeit happening. No matter how hard you and others work on Five, it's gonna be pretty hard for people to transition to Zope 3 if it doesn't provide the features they need. It will have the best of both systems, and improvements to both. Zope 2.9 has a lot of two systems. It doesn't have improvements to both, as we see that's clearly the mandate of the Zope 3 project, not of the Zope 2 or Five projects. We improve Zope 2 by taking bits of Zope 3. Mixing these things up into a Zope 5 puddle risks mixing it all up a lot. Yes it does. I think the risks of continuing two application server projects for the forseeable future has greater risks. When do you think all this work will be finished? I don't know. I don't think it has to be that far away, I think it could happen by the end of 2007, but that depends on resources. Who will work on it? There are a lot of people working on Five and on leveraging Zope 3 in Zope 2 now. There are a lot more people working on these efforts than are working on Zope 3. I think that having a single application server, which is an evolution of Zope 2 will encourage a lot more people to invest time. What do we do in the mean time? What do we tell people? We tell people where we're going. We tell people that Zope 2 is not a dead end. That they aren't second class citizens if they stay with Zope 2. We tell the people using Zope 3 now that they won't be left high and dry. That the future single application server will run there applications too. That it can be configured to look a lot like what they're used to now. Do you really feel comfortable promising all that? Based on what I've seen over the last year, I feel comfortable setting it as a goal/vision/roadmap. I can't promise anything. I never suggested I was. How are we not on the course to reaching this featureset, eventually, anyway? I think we're moving along pretty well. I don't see how *saying* what Zope 5 will contain will make it *exist* any time sooner. You seem to be arguing against a roadmap, which is puzzling. Obviously, predictions of the future are imperfect. These sound like useful evolution proposals for Zope 2 and Zope 3 to me... Yes The current story of Zope 2, Five and Zope 3 gets us in the right direction (Zope 5, if you want to call it that, though I would definitely want to introduce yet another name in the mix), step by step. We don't promise too much to people. We don't raise the wrong expecations anymore. What expectations did we raise? AFAIK, the official story is that Zope 3 will eventually replace Zope 2 and that Zope 2 will be augmented with Zope 3 technology to make the transition easier. I don't think there are many people, if any, really working on making Zope 3 a credible replacement for Zope 2. There are people working on making it into something wonderful, but not a replacement for Zope 2. Do you agree that this is the current story? If not, and if *we* cannot agree on what the current story is, think how confused everyone else must be. Everyone in the community is on board. I think many people in the community are extreemely confused. We are already doing the work that's required to reach the ideal of Zope 5. Exactly. The new vision I described attempts to capture reality. There are two parts to the reality: 1. Most of the effort in the Zope community is going toward improving Zope 2 with Zope 3 technology. 2. People working on Zope 3 don't want it to become like Zope 2. They
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions
Stephan Richter wrote: On Tuesday 28 February 2006 12:33, Martijn Faassen wrote: Are you kidding? No, I'm not kidding. +1 on the entire post from me too. And I would really like to see the questions he raised answered. OK, done. We just recovered from this BBB overpromise, What are you talking about? now we want to make another one. We also just started to position the Zope 3 name and software correctly in the market I'm so reassured. I had the opposite impression. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions
On 3/1/06, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's your point? That we shouldn't plan? That we shouldn't have a common vision for where we're going, or communicate that vision? Well, not neccesarily. Things change, and the plan for the future has not always been the same. The important part is that we work in the same direction. I think this discusson has been fruitful, and useful, but we don't need to get consensus on a plan yet, because no matter what the plan is, the next few steps are the same: Make Zope2+Five use more and more Zope3 technologies, making the transition smaller. That plan is good at least until July, and probably until december. Commiting to a vision too soon may mean we have to change the vision, which as we have seen, is not an easy communication task to do. So I suggest we commit to the vision of making Zope2 and Zope3 more similar, for the moment, and continue discussing the future for while more, before we commit to a proper vision. The vision we have now may be fluffy and slightly different, but at least we are not pulling in different directions, and that means it's not too fluffy, yet. -- Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo http://www.nuxeo.com/ CPS Content Management http://www.cps-project.org/ ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions
Lennart Regebro wrote: On 3/1/06, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's your point? That we shouldn't plan? That we shouldn't have a common vision for where we're going, or communicate that vision? Well, not neccesarily. Things change, and the plan for the future has not always been the same. The important part is that we work in the same direction. How is that possible if we don't communicate the vision? Are you suggesting a Zope Underground that knows the vision but keeps it secret to avoid making people nervous? ;) I think this discusson has been fruitful, and useful, but we don't need to get consensus on a plan yet, Then how are we going to work on the plan? because no matter what the plan is, the next few steps are the same: Make Zope2+Five use more and more Zope3 technologies, making the transition smaller. That plan is good at least until July, and probably until december. If the plan is to make make Zope 3 a replacement for Zope 2 or even to make them converge, then Zope 3 needs a lot of work that wouldn't be warrented otherwise. Commiting to a vision too soon may mean we have to change the vision, which as we have seen, is not an easy communication task to do. There's nothing wrong with changing the vision as long as it makes sense to do so. Sometimes, you change where you want to go based on what you've learned or on a changing environment. So I suggest we commit to the vision of making Zope2 and Zope3 more similar, for the moment, That implies more work than you realize. You seem to think that making Zope 2 and Zope 3 similar only requires changes to Zope 2. That is not true. It would require a lot of changes to Zope 3 too, changes that I don't think there's a lot of appetite for at this point. and continue discussing the future for while more, before we commit to a proper vision. The vision we have now may be fluffy and slightly different, but at least we are not pulling in different directions, and that means it's not too fluffy, yet. I think a lack of a realistic vision means that we are pulling in different directions. I think this is causing a lot of harm. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions
Stephan Richter wrote: On Wednesday 01 March 2006 10:06, Jim Fulton wrote: I don't see how *saying* what Zope 5 will contain will make it *exist* any time sooner. You seem to be arguing against a roadmap, which is puzzling. I don't think Martijn is arguing against a roadmap, he just asserts (and ( agree with him) that the current roadmap using Five is a good one that we should be following for while. What do you think the current roadmap is? I'm not sure we agree onwhat it is. That's a huge problem. BTW, you also have not addressed the naming issue. I think that throwing another name out there will make the community more wary than comfortable. I think that having one name for two radically different, though related, things is very confusing. There are really 2 main technologies that people care about: 1. The Zope app server. This is characterized by things like an object file system, through-the-web scripting and/or development, pluggable course-grained add-ons, etc. 2. The collection of Zope technologies that can be combined and reused in a variety of ways. These technologies support the app server, but they have a life of their own. I think that these efforts are very different and that calling them both zope is very confusing to people. OTOH, there are related. The first builds on the second, which is why, in many ways, Z is a good name for the second. I'll reiterate that the serach term Z is handled well by Google. IANANE (I am not a naming expert). I'm willing to defer to someone else on the names, but I think we do need to distinguish these two efforts more than we do now. I'll note that the fact that the single name Zope 3 refers to both technologies above is very confusing to people. My suggestion would be to move along as we do now, replace the security mechanism, use Zope 3's PTs in Zope 2, even switch the publisher, etc. Do we also fix WebDAV in Zope 3? How about TTW scripting? How about process control? Or all of the other things in Zope 2 that we haven't gotten around to yet? If we aren't going to work on these, don't you think we are giving people false expectations for Zope 3's application server? Then we can revisit our vision.roadmap and see how we can go from there. If you find this unacceptable, then you or someone else must do a much better job explaining the technical details of this vision. Perhaps, although technical details don't belong in a vision. Can you explain the current vision? Can you explain the current roadmap? Do you think we all agree on what it is? Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions
On 3/1/06, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lennart Regebro wrote: Well, not neccesarily. Things change, and the plan for the future has not always been the same. The important part is that we work in the same direction. How is that possible if we don't communicate the vision? In the long run it probably isn't. But in the short term it seems to work fine. :) Then how are we going to work on the plan? We don't have to work on a plan. All we need is to work. A plan is only needed when people start working in different directions. If the plan is to make make Zope 3 a replacement for Zope 2 or even to make them converge, then Zope 3 needs a lot of work that wouldn't be warrented otherwise. Maybe, but does it need it just right now? That implies more work than you realize. You seem to think that making Zope 2 and Zope 3 similar only requires changes to Zope 2. So far I think it requires only changes to Zope2, yes. If I'm wrong I would be interested to hear what you think must be changed in Zope 3.3 and 3.4. I think a lack of a realistic vision means that we are pulling in different directions. I think this is causing a lot of harm. OK. It doesn't look like that from here, but I could be wrong. -- Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo http://www.nuxeo.com/ CPS Content Management http://www.cps-project.org/ ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions
Lennart Regebro wrote: I like the vision of Zope2 becoming a set of extra packages you install for Zope3, to get backwards compatibility. Maybe this is the same as what you call Zope 5, maybe not. +1 -- Dmitry Vasiliev (dima at hlabs.spb.ru) http://hlabs.spb.ru ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Lennart Regebro a écrit : | OK, some initial, fuzzy comments: | | On 2/27/06, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: |2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5. | | - Zope 5 will be the application server generally known as Zope. It | will be backward compatible (to the same degree that Zope 2 | releases are currently backward compatible with previous Zope 2 | releases) with Zope 2. Zope 5 will similarly be backward | compatible with Zope 3 applications built on top of the current | Zope 3 application server. | | Note that Zope 5 will leverage Zope 3 technologies to allow a | variety of configurations, including a Zope 2-like configuration | with implicit acquisition and through-the-web development, and a | Zope 3-like configuration that looks a lot like the current Zope | 3 application server. Maybe, there will be a configuration that | allows Zope 2 and Zope 3 applications to be combined to a | significant degree. | | This overwhelms my complexity sensor. :-) | | I like the vision of Zope2 becoming a set of extra packages you | install for Zope3, to get backwards compatibility. Maybe this is the | same as what you call Zope 5, maybe not. I vote for this one. There's already Five product to help Zope2 products to become to be Zope3 compatible. Now, it's to Zope2 developpers to do the migration step. - -- Encolpe Degoute INGENIWEB (TM) - S.A.S 5 Euros - RC B 438 725 632 17 rue Louise Michel - 92300 Levallois Perret - France web : www.ingeniweb.com - « les Services Web Ingénieux » -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEBBFHvFPzBBlIZMMRArvxAJ4vp3oOz4Jbs2sRdi5NiTmrgP0OYQCcDOa/ CGBI+hYJG7O+26x3Z40vuFU= =2wf7 -END 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 )
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 17:06 +0100, Lennart Regebro wrote: OK, some initial, fuzzy comments: ... You are thinking about things like TTW development and such? Among other things. Zope 2 is more mature than Zope 3 in a lot of areas. WebDAV and process management are a couple of examples that occur to me off the top of my head. ... - Zope 5 will be the application server generally known as Zope. It will be backward compatible (to the same degree that Zope 2 releases are currently backward compatible with previous Zope 2 releases) with Zope 2. Zope 5 will similarly be backward compatible with Zope 3 applications built on top of the current Zope 3 application server. Note that Zope 5 will leverage Zope 3 technologies to allow a variety of configurations, including a Zope 2-like configuration with implicit acquisition and through-the-web development, and a Zope 3-like configuration that looks a lot like the current Zope 3 application server. Maybe, there will be a configuration that allows Zope 2 and Zope 3 applications to be combined to a significant degree. This overwhelms my complexity sensor. :-) Sorry, I'm not sure why. I like the vision of Zope2 becoming a set of extra packages you install for Zope3, to get backwards compatibility. Maybe this is the same as what you call Zope 5, maybe not. I see Zope 5 being a combination of Zope 2 and Zope 3, keeping the best of both. - There wouldn't be confusion about 2 Zopes. This is definitely true... And given some of the discussion over the last month or two, I think this is pretty important. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions
Jim Fulton wrote: [snip] I see Zope 5 being a combination of Zope 2 and Zope 3, keeping the best of both. I think we already have Zope 5, and it's called Zope 2.9. Perhaps I'm wrong. If so, how does Zope 5 differ from Zope 2.9? Regards, Martijn ___ 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] Two visions
Martijn Faassen wrote: I see Zope 5 being a combination of Zope 2 and Zope 3, keeping the best of both. I think we already have Zope 5, and it's called Zope 2.9. I'd rather say it's called Zope 2.15 or something :). Philipp ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions
On 2/28/06, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Zope 2 is more mature than Zope 3 in a lot of areas. WebDAV and process management are a couple of examples that occur to me off the top of my head. Ah, and here I got an answer to the question I just posted. :) Much of Zope2 maturity is there in a thorougly non-reusable way. We won't get WebDAV support for Zope3 objects by including some old crufty Zope2 code. This means that for most of these features, we will have to build something new anyway. This overwhelms my complexity sensor. :-) Sorry, I'm not sure why. Not the text, the result. :) Zope2 + Zope3 + Five is a MASSIVE complexity, and I think it is important that we don't make things more complex than necessary. I think the best vision for the Zope future is to have: 1. A set of basic non-webby techniques. This is ZODB, zope.interfaces, zope.components and all that. 2. An object publisher, that publishes the ZODB objects built with the techniques in point 1, including user handling, security, traversal, yadayadaydad. This would be known as Zope3. 3. An extension to Zope3 that includes the shim to support two modules called Products, all the old default products, and the support to make the Zope3 publisher publish these type of objects. In other words, a Zope2 backwards compatibility product. The steps to get here involves stuff like replacing Zope2s security with Zope3 security, replacing Zope2s publisher with Zope3s publisher, and so on, until Zope2 is almost nothing more than a set of products. 4. Other extension sets for Zope3, like z3ecm, for making ecm systems, and z3ttw for through-the-web development. Now, there may be something that is obviously unfeasable with all this. But it sure is much less overwhelmingly complex than some sort of Zope5. I see Zope 5 being a combination of Zope 2 and Zope 3, keeping the best of both. Doesn't that mean we only keep Zope3? ;-) And given some of the discussion over the last month or two, I think this is pretty important. Yup. -- Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo http://www.nuxeo.com/ CPS Content Management http://www.cps-project.org/ ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 17:29 +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: [snip] I see Zope 5 being a combination of Zope 2 and Zope 3, keeping the best of both. I think we already have Zope 5, and it's called Zope 2.9. Perhaps I'm wrong. If so, how does Zope 5 differ from Zope 2.9? Are you kidding? Zope 5 will be backward compatible with Zope 2 and Zope 3. It will allow configurations that look a lot like Zope 3. It will have the best of both systems, and improvements to both. It is where we put all of out app-server efforts. Among other things, it will have Zope 3's publisher and security model. It will provide support for non-developers much the way Zope 2 does now, but with better solutions that ZClasses. And, it will allow us to cleanly separate the efforts on an application server, from out work on widely usable components. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ 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] Two visions
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Martijn Faassen wrote: I see Zope 5 being a combination of Zope 2 and Zope 3, keeping the best of both. I think we already have Zope 5, and it's called Zope 2.9. I'd rather say it's called Zope 2.15 or something :). Seriously, we are developing applications that use huge chunks of Zope 3 technology and are portable to Zope 3 in a short time right now, on Zope 2.9. Zope 2.10 and further will make it all even better of course, but let's not forget what we already have right now. It's a lot. Regards, Martijn ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions
Jim Fulton wrote: On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 17:29 +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: [snip] I see Zope 5 being a combination of Zope 2 and Zope 3, keeping the best of both. I think we already have Zope 5, and it's called Zope 2.9. Perhaps I'm wrong. If so, how does Zope 5 differ from Zope 2.9? Are you kidding? No, I'm not kidding. Zope 2.9 is the closest thing to Zope 5 that we have today, that people can work with. Zope 2.10 will hopefully be closer too, and so on. Zope 5 will be backward compatible with Zope 2 and Zope 3. It will allow configurations that look a lot like Zope 3. Sounds like the original vision of Zope 3 without the X. I thought we never got around to developing this stuff the last time. What changed? It will have the best of both systems, and improvements to both. Zope 2.9 has a lot of two systems. It doesn't have improvements to both, as we see that's clearly the mandate of the Zope 3 project, not of the Zope 2 or Five projects. We improve Zope 2 by taking bits of Zope 3. Mixing these things up into a Zope 5 puddle risks mixing it all up a lot. It is where we put all of out app-server efforts. Among other things, it will have Zope 3's publisher and security model. It will provide support for non-developers much the way Zope 2 does now, but with better solutions that ZClasses. And, it will allow us to cleanly separate the efforts on an application server, from out work on widely usable components. When do you think all this work will be finished? Who will work on it? What do we do in the mean time? What do we tell people? Do you really feel comfortable promising all that? How are we not on the course to reaching this featureset, eventually, anyway? 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 gets us in the right direction (Zope 5, if you want to call it that, though I would definitely want to introduce yet another name in the mix), step by step. We don't promise too much to people. We don't raise the wrong expecations anymore. Everyone in the community is on board. We are already doing the work that's required to reach the ideal of Zope 5. You could rename Zope 2.10 to Zope 5.0, but I don't see what good that would do except to confuse people. It won't contain the features you list unless someone actually does all that work. The alternative is to put Zope 5 in the nebulous future when all the work you list is done, and it'll be just like our mythical Zope 3 without the X then - confusing people and raising the wrong expectations. Regards, Martijn ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions
On Feb 28, 2006, at 12:33 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: Are you kidding? No, I'm not kidding. +1 to what Martijn said in this email (not quoting the whole thing to save precious bandwith). ___ 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] Two visions
OK, some initial, fuzzy comments: On 2/27/06, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In this vision, Zope 3 would have to become a lot more like Zope 2, or we would lose features. You are thinking about things like TTW development and such? Because I see that as add-on products of different kinds. Like cpsskins to develop the look, and some sort of persistent schemas combined with some sort of aspect-oriented classes. ;-) If there is some sort of real core thingy that you lose going from Zope2 to Zope3 I must have missed it. :-p 2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5. - Zope 5 will be the application server generally known as Zope. It will be backward compatible (to the same degree that Zope 2 releases are currently backward compatible with previous Zope 2 releases) with Zope 2. Zope 5 will similarly be backward compatible with Zope 3 applications built on top of the current Zope 3 application server. Note that Zope 5 will leverage Zope 3 technologies to allow a variety of configurations, including a Zope 2-like configuration with implicit acquisition and through-the-web development, and a Zope 3-like configuration that looks a lot like the current Zope 3 application server. Maybe, there will be a configuration that allows Zope 2 and Zope 3 applications to be combined to a significant degree. This overwhelms my complexity sensor. :-) I like the vision of Zope2 becoming a set of extra packages you install for Zope3, to get backwards compatibility. Maybe this is the same as what you call Zope 5, maybe not. - There wouldn't be confusion about 2 Zopes. This is definitely true... -- Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo http://www.nuxeo.com/ CPS Content Management http://www.cps-project.org/ ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions
On Monday 27 February 2006 11:06, Lennart Regebro wrote: I like the vision of Zope2 becoming a set of extra packages you install for Zope3, to get backwards compatibility. Maybe this is the same as what you call Zope 5, maybe not. That would sound good to me!!! Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ 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 )
