Hey,
Tim Hoffman wrote:
I thhink just dropping zmi is ploblematical
without a management ui alternative. How would you propose managing
things like per instance pluggable auth components. zcml is not enough
and nor is any other static config. You need per instance persistent
configuration
Hey,
Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
Am Mittwoch 15 April 2009 09:24:23 schrieb Martijn Faassen:
[snip]
* I'd recommend some people get together and focus on building a much
smaller, more tightly focused replacement of the ZMI that does the
things people find important but is just a single package
Hi there,
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
Am Mittwoch 15 April 2009 09:24:23 schrieb Martijn Faassen:
[snip]
* I'd recommend some people get together and focus on building a much
smaller, more tightly focused replacement of the ZMI that does the
things people find
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 16:46, Jim Fulton j...@zope.com wrote:
Many people have said they're using the Zope 3 app server, where app
server is the collection of components used to run applications using
Zope 3 components.
What no one is interested in is the *application* that was distributed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
By now I count three people using Zope 3 for a small number of projects.
But none of them seems to have the resources to continue the maintenance
or future development of Zope 3.
Whilst you're
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Declaring things dead has a tendency to become a self-fulfilling
prophecy, and probably not something we should do lightly.
I didn't mean to imply that we should declare Zope 3 dead based on this
mailing list thread. This is a big decision that might warrant a Zope
On Apr 14, 2009, at 10:34 AM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
...
I'd merely suggest that if nobody responds to this thread announcing
interest in Zope 3 the app server, then it might be time to consider
it
dead. Neither at PyCon nor during many of the last threads we found a
single user of Zope
Hey,
Roger Ineichen wrote:
* the thing with the ZMI - do you care about the ZMI?
Of corse do we all need the UI part for manage the components
we install. But the old style ZMI views are obsolate this days.
Right now we have to write this part for each project by ourself
if they need to
Roger Ineichen wrote:
Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] who wants to maintain Zope 3?
Roger Ineichen wrote:
Betreff: [Zope-dev] who wants to maintain Zope 3?
Is anyone interested in maintaining Zope 3?
/me is certainly not
I don't understand why you are not interested in Zope 3.
Are you really
Hey,
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote at 2009-4-11 15:05 +0200:
...
+1, to declaring Zope 3 dead. That should allow us to refactor the
remaining packages much more aggressively and reduce the dependencies.
You (Zope developers) are very fast in declaring things dead and
Hey,
Jim Fulton wrote:
What the heck is the Zope Toolkit? Is there a page somewhere that
defines what it is?
http://docs.zope.org/zopetoolkit/about/index.html
I thought Zope 3 was being renamed Zope
Toolkit, but given recent discussions, I'm not sure.
That never was the idea. The
Hey,
Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
[snip]
It's extremely important to understand the differences between Zope 3,
and Zope 3 technologies. The only thing that looks dead is Zope 3 as a
big monolithic application server. Few people are interested in that.
You seem to be. Hence the question: Who
Hello,
* 2009-04-13 12:50, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
+1, to declaring Zope 3 dead. That should allow us to refactor the
remaining packages much more aggressively and reduce the dependencies.
-1 from my standpoint. Two of my projects are fully based on the Zope 3
server, and switching to
Tim Hoffman wrote:
[snip]
It seems from all the discussion of late that we might of chosen a
architectural dead end (though I don't think so).
It's definitely not an architectural dead-end. I think the codebase we
used to call Zope 3 has been evolving faster in these few months in 2009
than
Hey,
Tim Hoffman wrote:
can I specify security annotations on objects persisted in the zodb as
per zope3/zope2
which are over and above the class/view decleration.
I'll just note you can do this in Grok. Grok has per-model security
declarations, just like Zope 3's. It just doesn't have
Hey,
Chris McDonough wrote:
[snip]
Sounds like a plan... I hope to learn from what you do to get rid of some
non-lxml C dependencies we have too (ala zope.interface, zope.proxy,
zope.hookable, zope.i18nmessageid, etc); maybe we can fold some of this work
into the normal or alternate
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
By now I count three people using Zope 3 for a small number of projects.
But none of them seems to have the resources to continue the maintenance
or future development of Zope 3.
Whilst you're absolutely right, just a word of warning: a lot of people
do not read
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2009-4-10 18:33 +0200:
Is anyone interested in maintaining Zope 3?
You should leave a bit more time before you take any drastic actions...
There are holidays, time of intensive other activity, .
It'll take time before we all settle on a
Hey,
Baiju M wrote:
[snip]
Does Zope Tookit support building a web application out of the box
without relying on Grok, Zope 2 or any other framework ?
(I am Ok to use a Buildout for building application from
Zope Toolkit packages)
This is a very good question. My answer is no, it doesn't.
On Apr 14, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey,
Jim Fulton wrote:
What the heck is the Zope Toolkit? Is there a page somewhere that
defines what it is?
http://docs.zope.org/zopetoolkit/about/index.html
I thought Zope 3 was being renamed Zope
Toolkit, but given recent
Hi Martijn
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: zope-dev-boun...@zope.org
[mailto:zope-dev-boun...@zope.org] Im Auftrag von Martijn Faassen
Gesendet: Dienstag, 14. April 2009 17:54
An: zope-dev@zope.org
Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] who wants to maintain Zope 3?
Hey,
Baiju M wrote
Hey,
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Friday 10 April 2009, Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
With Zope 3 I mean:
* the thing with the ZMI - do you care about the ZMI?
I think boxing in Zope 3 being the ZMI app is not useful. I have not used the
ZMI since 2 years now and I am still considering
Hey,
Jim Fulton wrote:
I don't think these bits are cleanly separated. For example, if a
content component has some views, are those ZMI bits?
Yes. zope.container doesn't define views. zope.app.container did (and
does). browser directories are generally not part of the Zope Toolkit,
Hey,
Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
[snip]
If the question was who is interested in zope3, the application server,
and willing to maintain it, I'd answer me.
Thanks for speaking up!
Do you use the Zope 3 ZMI a lot?
The Zope Toolkit right now is most of the Zope 3 libraries. The main
thing we're
Hey,
Albertas Agejevas wrote:
[snip]
You are using an interesting definition of maintaining.
This is why I spelled it out.
But yes, if you maintain an open source project, and you want it to work
well, you need to take care about issues like maintaining its community,
which means
Hello,
* 2009-04-14 19:25, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Do you use the Zope 3 ZMI a lot?
It depends on your meaning of a lot: we do not use it as main UI, not
even for the back-end, nevertheless we often use it for managing our
applications. I mean, adding/renaming/moving/editing objects to the ZODB,
Hi Martijn
Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] who wants to maintain Zope 3?
Hey,
Jim Fulton wrote:
I don't think these bits are cleanly separated. For
example, if a
content component has some views, are those ZMI bits?
Yes. zope.container doesn't define views. zope.app.container
did
Am Dienstag 14 April 2009 19:32:20 schrieb Fabio Tranchitella:
Hello,
* 2009-04-14 19:25, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Do you use the Zope 3 ZMI a lot?
It depends on your meaning of a lot: we do not use it as main UI, not
even for the back-end, nevertheless we often use it for managing our
I thhink just dropping zmi is ploblematical
without a management ui alternative. How would you propose managing
things like per instance pluggable auth components. zcml is not enough
and nor is any other static config. You need per instance persistent
configuration and I am assuming grok and
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 08:14, Dieter Maurer die...@handshake.de wrote:
When upgrading from Zope 2.8 to Zope 2.11, I had to fight for
several hours because Zope 3 interfaces have been changed:
True, you went from Zope 3.0 to 3.3 in one swoop there, and the
changes was significant. But most of
Am Samstag 11 April 2009 15:05:31 schrieb Hanno Schlichting:
Roger Ineichen wrote:
Betreff: [Zope-dev] who wants to maintain Zope 3?
Is anyone interested in maintaining Zope 3?
/me is certainly not
With Zope 3 I mean:
I think we should take a look if we can build a minimal
setup
Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
-1 from my standpoint. Two of my projects are fully based on the Zope 3
server, and switching to something else would be quite some pain.
FWIW, I think you're absolutely right. We can't just declare it dead
because it is convenient to our goal of having clearer
Hi Martin
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: zope-dev-bounces+dev=projekt01...@zope.org
[mailto:zope-dev-bounces+dev=projekt01...@zope.org] Im
Auftrag von Martin Aspeli
Gesendet: Montag, 13. April 2009 13:07
An: zope-dev@zope.org
Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] who wants to maintain Zope
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 12:49, Hermann Himmelbauer du...@qwer.tk wrote:
I personally find it interesting that people are that fast with turning around
and killing off things. I personally based my decision for Zope 3 on Philipps
book (Web Compontent Development with Zope 3), whereas the latest
Previously Martin Aspeli wrote:
Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
-1 from my standpoint. Two of my projects are fully based on the Zope 3
server, and switching to something else would be quite some pain.
FWIW, I think you're absolutely right. We can't just declare it dead
because it is
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Martijn Faassen
faas...@startifact.com wrote:
Hi there,
Is anyone interested in maintaining Zope 3?
With Zope 3 I mean:
* the thing with the ZMI - do you care about the ZMI?
* the thing that can be installed as a particular development platform -
do you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Baiju M wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Martijn Faassen
faas...@startifact.com wrote:
Hi there,
Is anyone interested in maintaining Zope 3?
With Zope 3 I mean:
* the thing with the ZMI - do you care about the ZMI?
* the thing that
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2009-4-10 18:33 +0200:
Is anyone interested in maintaining Zope 3?
You should leave a bit more time before you take any drastic actions...
There are holidays, time of intensive other activity,
...
* the thing that has some kind of documentation website - do you
Hanno Schlichting wrote at 2009-4-11 15:05 +0200:
...
+1, to declaring Zope 3 dead. That should allow us to refactor the
remaining packages much more aggressively and reduce the dependencies.
You (Zope developers) are very fast in declaring things dead and
destroy things application developers
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 02:10, Tim Hoffman t...@zute.net wrote:
We are using Zope 3 pretty much as it comes from zopeproject, and
storm orm for a large part of the persistence layer (plus ZODB).
I have to say I think it's great that somebody that does this finally
is speaking up. There shurely
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 08:51, Dieter Maurer die...@handshake.de wrote:
I see myself rather as an application developer and conclude that
Zope may no longer be adequate to build large applications on top
of it -- applications that need to live and be maintained for many years
to come.
Well,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris McDonough wrote:
On 4/11/09 11:49 PM, Tim Hoffman wrote:
Ok so pretty much the same as the traditional Zope 3 model.
Are you still using the 'c' based zope.security or built your own.
We don't depend on zope.security and there is no C in
Roger Ineichen wrote:
Betreff: [Zope-dev] who wants to maintain Zope 3?
Is anyone interested in maintaining Zope 3?
/me is certainly not
With Zope 3 I mean:
I think we should take a look if we can build a minimal
setup which Plone, Grok and other projects can use. Do you think
there
Roger Ineichen wrote:
Hi Martijn
Betreff: [Zope-dev] who wants to maintain Zope 3?
Hi there,
Is anyone interested in maintaining Zope 3?
With Zope 3 I mean:
* the thing with the ZMI - do you care about the ZMI?
Of corse do we all need the UI part for manage the components
we
Martijn Faassen wrote:
If nobody is interested, we should perhaps stop talking about it
entirely. If people are just interested in the ZMI, perhaps we should
form a ZMI project.
Yes, but I'd like to *ban* the name ZMI, that is a Zope 2 construct and
should be left as such...
Chris
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Roger Ineichen wrote:
If nobody is interested, we should perhaps stop talking about
it entirely. If people are just interested in the ZMI,
perhaps we should form a ZMI project.
The question is, can we find browser page pattern which Grok,
Hi
I have a couple of questions about Zope 3 rather than Zope Toolkit,
as it seems not many people are using Zope 3 the application server.
I have been working on a project using Zope 3 (the app server ) for
nearly 8 months
. The project is not finished (other stuff keeps coming up which
On 4/11/09 8:10 PM, Tim Hoffman wrote:
If someone where coming to the Zope party now and needed the full
blown security model and view mechanisms, and the zcml tied to that
model what would the choice be going forward?
repoze.bfg has pretty much gutted that model (which is fine as a
simpler
Hi Chris
can I specify security annotations on objects persisted in the zodb as
per zope3/zope2
which are over and above the class/view decleration.
bfg wasn't around when we started so I have looked too closely at bfg
from security point of view
T
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Chris
On 4/11/09 10:20 PM, Tim Hoffman wrote:
Hi Chris
can I specify security annotations on objects persisted in the zodb as
per zope3/zope2
which are over and above the class/view decleration.
Yes, for instance, in some code that manipulates a persistent object, you can
do
something like:
Ok so pretty much the same as the traditional Zope 3 model.
Are you still using the 'c' based zope.security or built your own.
On a side note I have got a big chunk of zope3 running on gae (had to
gut zope.security and zope.proxy) and plan on revisiting the whole
effort looking at bfg, but I
On 4/11/09 11:49 PM, Tim Hoffman wrote:
Ok so pretty much the same as the traditional Zope 3 model.
Are you still using the 'c' based zope.security or built your own.
We don't depend on zope.security and there is no C in the BFG security code
itself.
On a side note I have got a big chunk of
Hi Chris
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com wrote:
On 4/11/09 11:49 PM, Tim Hoffman wrote:
Ok so pretty much the same as the traditional Zope 3 model.
Are you still using the 'c' based zope.security or built your own.
We don't depend on zope.security and
On 4/12/09 12:02 AM, Tim Hoffman wrote:
Hi Chris
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Chris McDonoughchr...@plope.com wrote:
On 4/11/09 11:49 PM, Tim Hoffman wrote:
Ok so pretty much the same as the traditional Zope 3 model.
Are you still using the 'c' based zope.security or built your own.
Hi Martijn
Betreff: [Zope-dev] who wants to maintain Zope 3?
Hi there,
Is anyone interested in maintaining Zope 3?
With Zope 3 I mean:
* the thing with the ZMI - do you care about the ZMI?
Of corse do we all need the UI part for manage the components
we install. But the old style
55 matches
Mail list logo
