On 07/06/2011 10:59 AM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
The ZMI is a highly insecure, completely outdated and user-unfriendly
interface.
As I read this, I got an idea for a possible way forward. I haven't
been reading zope-dev much lately, so forgive me if something like this
has been mentioned
On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 12:10:35 +0100
Laurence Rowe l...@lrowe.co.uk wrote:
Hello,
I agree with Jonas that any idea of giving a package named Zope2 a
version number that is not 2.x is only going to lead to more
confusion. For Zope2 we're used the x in 2.x.y being the major version
now
On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 12:11:40 +0100
Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Hello,
I think it would be very sad if that happened, especially since there
evidently demand from other projects.
What I think is clear is that to evolve Zope 2, we need to shed some
baggage and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/07/2011 03:24 AM, Shane Hathaway wrote:
On 07/06/2011 10:59 AM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
The ZMI is a highly insecure, completely outdated and
user-unfriendly interface.
As I read this, I got an idea for a possible way forward. I haven't
On 5 July 2011 20:21, Leonardo Rochael Almeida leoroch...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Hanno,
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:18, Hanno Schlichting ha...@hannosch.eu wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com
wrote:
I would've thought it would also be possible for those
On 07/05/2011 12:22 PM, Jonas Meurer wrote:
Since we don't market Zope2 anymore, I think there's actually much
less confusion from this than we'd fear. It's just an internal version
number used in some buildout files, not something that has any
particular meaning.
I don't like either of
On 7/6/11 13:41 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
Concerning not marketing Zope 2, heh, Zope and marketing strategies? I
thought we were going to call Zope 2, Zope now, so people will
obviously be curious about this Zope thing... Never make any assumptions
about a coherent Zope marketing strategy! I'll
I'm sorry, I don't really understand the current line of discussion yet.
I see a lot of discussion which part is going to be cut out and dropped,
or replaced. I haven't yet understood what's the end target for the
project.
So, are you guys expecting to get Zope into a shape where it will
attract
On 6 July 2011 15:27, Sascha Welter zopel...@betabug.ch wrote:
I'm sorry, I don't really understand the current line of discussion yet.
I see a lot of discussion which part is going to be cut out and dropped,
or replaced. I haven't yet understood what's the end target for the
project.
So,
Hi.
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Leonardo Rochael Almeida
leoroch...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess this is the biggest point of contention. Why does the ZMI have
to go? Although both Plone and ERP5 strive to gradually replace ZMI
based configuration with native interfaces (native to Plone/ERP5),
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Tobias Helfrich helfr...@know-it.net wrote:
OK, so you do think that we might use Zope 2.12 for a quite long time
without thinking about anymore updates? Will there be any security
updates for Zope 2.12 in the future?
You want to use Zope 2.13. 2.12 is at the
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Sylvain Viollon sylv...@infrae.com wrote:
... and I still do use the VirtualHostMonster
(you can trash all the other things).
I agree that its code might not been the best in the world, but it
works for the moment and does what it says (I would love to see
On 5 July 2011 09:42, Hanno Schlichting ha...@hannosch.eu wrote:
What you are describing is exactly what I meant by old legacy Zope2
applications.
You should be able to use this style of development with Zope 2.13.
But you won't be able to upgrade to newer versions of Zope 2 anymore
and
On 5 July 2011 10:18, Hanno Schlichting ha...@hannosch.eu wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com
wrote:
I would've thought it would also be possible for those who rely on this
to
maintain the relevant eggs as optional installations against Zope 2.x,
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:19 PM, yuppie y.2...@wcm-solutions.de wrote:
Long-term maintenance for Zope 2.13 would give these
projects/deployments at least a few more years.
Yes. I'm willing to cut releases for it for quite a while. I just
expect to see active maintenance from the Plone community
On 5 July 2011 10:31, Hanno Schlichting ha...@hannosch.eu wrote:
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:19 PM, yuppie y.2...@wcm-solutions.de wrote:
Long-term maintenance for Zope 2.13 would give these
projects/deployments at least a few more years.
Yes. I'm willing to cut releases for it for quite a
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 July 2011 10:31, Hanno Schlichting ha...@hannosch.eu wrote:
So we just got ourselves a Zope2 version 3.0. And no, naming it 4.0 or
5.0 or anything else doesn't make it any better at all. So 3.0 is the
most
On 7/5/11 11:56 , Martin Aspeli wrote:
On 5 July 2011 10:31, Hanno Schlichtingha...@hannosch.eu wrote:
So we just got ourselves a Zope2 version 3.0. And no, naming it 4.0 or
5.0 or anything else doesn't make it any better at all. So 3.0 is the
most sensible one :)
Boy, that's going to be
On 5 July 2011 11:10, Jens Vagelpohl j...@dataflake.org wrote:
On 7/5/11 11:56 , Martin Aspeli wrote:
On 5 July 2011 10:31, Hanno Schlichtingha...@hannosch.eu wrote:
So we just got ourselves a Zope2 version 3.0. And no, naming it 4.0 or
5.0 or anything else doesn't make it any better at
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 05.07.2011 12:04, schrieb Hanno Schlichting:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 5 July 2011 10:31, Hanno Schlichting ha...@hannosch.eu wrote:
So we just got ourselves a Zope2 version 3.0. And no,
Hi Hanno
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Tobias Helfrich
helfr...@know-it.net wrote:
OK, so you do think that we might use Zope 2.12 for a quite
long time
without thinking about anymore updates? Will there be any security
updates for Zope 2.12 in the future?
You want to use
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 05.07.2011 11:30, schrieb Martin Aspeli:
On 5 July 2011 10:18, Hanno Schlichting ha...@hannosch.eu
mailto:ha...@hannosch.eu wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Martin Aspeli
optilude+li...@gmail.com
On 5 July 2011 11:22, Jonas Meurer jo...@freesources.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 05.07.2011 12:04, schrieb Hanno Schlichting:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 5 July 2011 10:31, Hanno Schlichting
Hi,
On 5 July 2011 11:26, Tobias Helfrich helfr...@know-it.net wrote:
Hi Hanno
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Tobias Helfrich
helfr...@know-it.net wrote:
OK, so you do think that we might use Zope 2.12 for a quite
long time
without thinking about anymore updates? Will there be
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Jens Vagelpohl j...@dataflake.org wrote:
On 7/5/11 11:56 , Martin Aspeli wrote:
On 5 July 2011 10:31, Hanno Schlichtingha...@hannosch.eu wrote:
I'd actually favour calling it Zope2 4.0 just to avoid any mix-up with the
defunct Zope 3, although I don't think
Am 05.07.2011, 14:44 Uhr, schrieb Jens Vagelpohl j...@dataflake.org:
zopefour as a domain isn't very helpful. It would add yet another
top-level name to the existing list (Zope 2, Zope 3).
In the best of all possible worlds the package now known as Zope2
would simply be Zope, and its website
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Jens Vagelpohl j...@dataflake.org wrote:
zopefour as a domain isn't very helpful. It would add yet another
top-level name to the existing list (Zope 2, Zope 3).
That was an April fools joke I was referring to. I didn't mean to
suggest to actually use that in any
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 14:41, Hanno Schlichting ha...@hannosch.eu wrote:
Ok, seems 4.0 is the more popular choice.
I don't agree. Let's go with Fibonacci and call the next release Zope
8, as the logical extension of the series 1, 2, 3, and 5!
:-P
--
Martijn Pieters
Martijn Pieters wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 14:41, Hanno Schlichtingha...@hannosch.eu wrote:
Ok, seems 4.0 is the more popular choice.
I don't agree. Let's go with Fibonacci and call the next release Zope
8, as the logical extension of the series 1, 2, 3, and 5!
How about
ZopeNG?
On 7/5/11 3:22 AM, zope-dev-requ...@zope.org wrote:
Hanno writes:
Someone might try, but I think it's not a wise decision to spent any
resources that way.
I am trying. I am trying to create a Zope 2 like TTW development
environment on top of BlueBream. I have a small email list of people
Hi Hanno,
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:18, Hanno Schlichting ha...@hannosch.eu wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com
wrote:
I would've thought it would also be possible for those who rely on this to
maintain the relevant eggs as optional installations
On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 01:09:17 -0400
Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com wrote:
On Sun, 2011-07-03 at 03:41 +0200, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Hello,
- Continue to remove functionality tailored for TTW development,
like SiteRoot, AccessRules, HelpSys and step-by-step most of the ZMI
-
On Sun, Jul 03, 2011 at 06:10:48PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
On 2011-7-3 17:48, Martin Aspeli wrote:
FWIW, we have a high-performance, high-load application in production on
Plone 4 with collective.beaker relying heavily on sessions, and I'm not
aware of any problems with it. We use
Hi!
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
I think moving to Zope 2.12 and 2.13 does have some value for Nexedi
or other large existing codebases, as you get support for current
versions of the ZODB, Zope Toolkit packages and support for Python 2.7
with Zope 2.13. Since Python 2.7 is a long-term
Hi Hanno,
From the point of view of the ERP5 codebase, this direction for Zope2
should be mostly ok, save for a few comments below:
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 03:41, Hanno Schlichting ha...@hannosch.eu wrote:
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 1:03 AM, Leonardo Rochael Almeida
leoroch...@gmail.com wrote:
Something of a meta-comment on this thread:
It sounds like people are broadly in agreement on the direction, but not
communicating enough about what's actually going on.
I think it would be useful to keep some kind of roadmap wiki on zope.org, or
at least post to the list periodically saying,
On 4 July 2011 13:04, Leonardo Rochael Almeida leoroch...@gmail.com wrote:
On the other hand, if we could get the ZTK version of this working
(the one that used /++vh-host and /++vh-root url segments) I think it
should be ok, and we could get rid of VHM completely.
The BlueBream URL syntax is
On 2011-7-4 11:59, Marius Gedminas wrote:
On Sun, Jul 03, 2011 at 06:10:48PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
On 2011-7-3 17:48, Martin Aspeli wrote:
FWIW, we have a high-performance, high-load application in production on
Plone 4 with collective.beaker relying heavily on sessions, and I'm not
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com wrote:
Zope still needs to the virtual host monster (or something like it) even
with the WSGI publisher; there's nothing equivalent in the WSGI world
(unless you could repoze.vhm, which is essentially just the virtual host
On 3 July 2011 16:44, Hanno Schlichting ha...@hannosch.eu wrote:
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com wrote:
Zope still needs to the virtual host monster (or something like it) even
with the WSGI publisher; there's nothing equivalent in the WSGI world
(unless
On 2011-7-3 17:48, Martin Aspeli wrote:
FWIW, we have a high-performance, high-load application in production on
Plone 4 with collective.beaker relying heavily on sessions, and I'm not
aware of any problems with it. We use the memcached backend across two
physical servers and a large number of
On Sun, 2011-07-03 at 17:44 +0200, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
I don't have any skin in this game, but FTR, Mike Bayer isn't feeling
all that confident about Beaker's sessioning component (or so he has
told me). Beaker was originally made as a caching component, and had
sessioning jammed
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 1:03 AM, Leonardo Rochael Almeida
leoroch...@gmail.com wrote:
I noticed you've been very busy doing clean-up on the Zope2 code base
in the last few hours. As someone who has recently spent a lot of time
porting forward a large and mission-critical code base, ERP5, from
On Sun, 2011-07-03 at 03:41 +0200, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
- Continue to remove functionality tailored for TTW development, like
SiteRoot, AccessRules, HelpSys and step-by-step most of the ZMI
- Document and use the WSGI publisher and remove obsoleted
functionality like the virtual host
44 matches
Mail list logo
