Jeff Shell wrote:
Yes. There's a dominant Zope name out there. It's not the Component
Architecture nor is it built on it. It's starting to use it, but it's
not based on it. However, since the project that Zope 3 [AS] came out
of is still identified in the Wiki as the 'Component Architecture'
Jeff Shell wrote:
- Zope 3 CA: The Zope Component Architecture. Core services. Would
include zope.publisher and most other current top level zope.* things.
Usable as a library, as a publisher for other environments, perhaps as a
simple standalone server. Easy to deploy against WSGI,
On Mar 1, 2006, at 7:42 PM, Jeff Shell wrote:
[...]
- Zope 3 CA: The Zope Component Architecture. Core services. Would
include zope.publisher and most other current top level zope.*
things.
Usable as a library, as a publisher for other environments,
perhaps as a
simple standalone
I think packaging efforts are really the key to being able to tell a
story like this. The efforts happen to be couched in a process of
converting z3 packages into eggs, but really the process of
identifying dependencies and eliminating the silly ones is the
valuable work here, and it
Chris McDonough wrote:
[...] the process of identifying
dependencies and eliminating the silly ones is the valuable work here,
and it seems to be getting done by embracing egg packaging, which is
really wonderful.
Such a gushing endorsement! Now I feel guilty for not having tried eggs
On Mar 1, 2006, at 11:31 PM, Shane Hathaway wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
[...] the process of identifying
dependencies and eliminating the silly ones is the valuable work
here, and it seems to be getting done by embracing egg packaging,
which is really wonderful.
Such a gushing
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 21:43:10 -0500
Chris McDonough [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think packaging efforts are really the key to being able
to tell a story like this. The efforts happen to be
couched in a process of converting z3 packages into
eggs, but really the process of identifying
On 3/1/06, Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 21:43:10 -0500
Chris McDonough [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From a marketing or user convenience perspective, labels
like the ones proposed remain useful, however. Personally,
I think they're fine. I'm not sure I wouldn't ditch
