-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
|
Ursprüngliche Nachricht
am: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:57:46 -0500
von: Stephan Richter : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I just want to be ensured that I do not have to deal with additional
overhead
(i.e. learn Zope 2 again), but can develop Zope 3 applications as I like it.
Not new to Python but new to
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
Jeff Shell wrote:
Perhaps it's not the greatest name, but I've become enamored with *lib
names like 'formlib'.
'zopelib'
Hmmm. Not the prettiest thing. But it does say Zope Library. If that
becomes the *core* of the mythical Zope 5, awesome.
This sounds familiar. :-)
Jim Fulton wrote:
I'd like to get feedback on two possible visions for the future of
Zope 2 and Zope 3.
1) Our current vision (AFAIK) is that Zope 3 will eventually
replace Zope 2
[snip]
2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
[snip]
Thoughts?
My initial reaction is:
Max M wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
Zope 2 is complicated! It has too many layers of everything.
The reason for Zope 3 is to make it simpler for developers.
Therefore I believe that any succesfull strategy would require Zope 3 to
be usable
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
[snip]
I would vote for spelling out Zed (which would also be a little easier
to google but might create trademark problems). The namespace package
could either be 'z' or 'zed'.
Then again, I really should take Jim's side and stay out of naming
decisions.
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 12:31:33AM +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
I will also note that just because Zope 2 won't die, it doesn't mean we
shouldn't clean it up. Eventually, Zope should mostly be reusing things
from Zed.
+sys.maxint
I think this will be the way
Hey,
I have another comment about Zope 5, sparked by something Jeff Shell wrote.
Currently we have a clear path to evolution. Zope 3 evolves at its pace,
and Zope 2 evolves mostly by catching up with Zope 3, replacing more and
more bits with Zope 3 bits, which often takes considerable
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
[snip]
I would vote for spelling out Zed (which would also be a little easier
to google but might create trademark problems). The namespace package
could either be 'z' or 'zed'.
Then again, I really should take Jim's side and stay out
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 07:22, Martijn Faassen wrote:
I don't see how we need a new vision. This has been the vision
(evolution, not revolution) that I've been carrying out with Five for
the last few years and thanks to a lot of contributions by a large range
of developers, we've been
Martijn Faassen wrote:
So, my proposal would be to tone down the vision to what we have
already: a co-evolving Zope 3 and Zope 2, with Zope 2 following and Zope
3 leading (or Zope 2 driving Zope 3 forward, however you want to see
it). No renaming necessary. No change of course necessary. Zope
Martijn Faassen wrote:
I will also note that just because Zope 2 won't die, it doesn't mean we
shouldn't clean it up. Eventually, Zope should mostly be reusing things
from Zed.
+sys.maxint
I think this will be the way we get a real forward migration path for an
awful lot of us who are
Stephan Richter wrote:
1) Our current vision (AFAIK) is that Zope 3 will eventually
replace Zope 2
2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
As you probably know already, I am -1 on the second proposal, since it will
disallow us to finally get rid of the old Zope 2 code.
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 00:22, Encolpe Degoute wrote:
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
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
I don't see how we need a new vision. This has been the vision
(evolution, not revolution) that I've been carrying out with Five for
the last few years and thanks to a lot of contributions by a large range
of developers, we've been
--On 28. Februar 2006 16:06:55 +0100 Philipp von Weitershausen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think focusing on one app server and a dedicated set of libraries
would be a good alternative to two concurring app servers.
+1
-aj
pgp3JPYef1z8N.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
1) Our current vision (AFAIK) is that Zope 3 will eventually
replace Zope 2
2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
As you probably know already, I am -1 on the second proposal, since it will
disallow us to finally get
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Max M wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
Zope 2 is complicated! It has too many layers of everything.
The reason for Zope 3 is to make it simpler for developers.
Therefore
On 2/28/06, Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the other major point is the door #2 proposal takes pressure
off of Zope3: under that regime, Zope3 does not need to grow all the
features present in Zope2, which door #1 *does* imply.
I still would like to know wich these missing
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
Tres Seaver wrote:
[snip]
In this vision, the Zope 3 project should stay where it is and push
things forward. That doesn't mean Five should be ignored by Zope 3
developers, but it should be compartmentalized in people's minds. Zope 3
does innovation, Five does integration, and then the big
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
___
Zope3-dev mailing
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
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
Gary Poster wrote:
[snip]
On Feb 28, 2006, at 10:06 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
I think focusing on one app server and a dedicated set of libraries
would be a good alternative to two concurring app servers.
...if the single app server is based on acquisition, __bobo_traverse__
and
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
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
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).
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Am 28.02.2006 um 17:28 schrieb Paul Winkler:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 09:24:49PM -0500, Stephan Richter wrote:
On Monday 27 February 2006 16:56, Paul Winkler wrote:
At pycon we have just moved zope.interface
into a separate project (in preparation for eggification).
It's now a separate
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 21:24 -0500, Stephan Richter wrote:
On Monday 27 February 2006 16:56, Paul Winkler wrote:
At pycon we have just moved zope.interface
into a separate project (in preparation for eggification).
It's now a separate project at
http://svn.zope.org/zope.interface/trunk/
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 11:28, Paul Winkler wrote:
Haven't we said forever that we want parts of zope 3 to be easily usable
independently of each other? Is there anything controversial about
making that more convenient?
My post is not about the merit of the change, but about neglecting
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:33:05 -, Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
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
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:41:08 +0100
Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you please stop using a new name for Zope 3 or the
zope package? You can explain this perfectly well using
the existing, well established names.
I strongly disagree with this sentiment. To me the name
change
Martijn Faassen wrote:
I think focusing on one app server and a dedicated set of libraries
would be a good alternative to two concurring app servers.
...if the single app server is based on acquisition,
__bobo_traverse__ and friends, objectValues and friends, ZCatalog,
and so on, I'd
On 2/28/06, Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
[snip]
On Feb 28, 2006, at 10:06 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
I think focusing on one app server and a dedicated set of libraries
would be a good alternative to two concurring app servers.
...if the
36 matches
Mail list logo
