Rob Jeschofnik wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
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.
I think the crux of the issue here is that presently, we do not have a
consistent answer to the question What is `Zope'?.
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
Jeff Shell has posted some thought-provoking pieces on his blog that are
relevant to Jim's recent attempt to better articulate a vision for Zope:
http://griddlenoise.blogspot.com/2006/03/zope-crisis-of-faith-coming-this-march.html
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
On 3/5/06, Geoff Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeff Shell has posted some thought-provoking pieces on his blog that are
relevant to Jim's recent attempt to better articulate a vision for Zope:
http://griddlenoise.blogspot.com/2006/03/zope-crisis-of-faith-coming-this-march.html
I am very glad to see that Jim's efforts to better articulate a vision for
Zope have generated so much interest. I am not so sure that the
discussion has been an entirely productive one.
I think that we as a community would benefit by working on our social
engineering as much as our software
Geoff Davis wrote:
...
* Can we address Jeff's concerns? If so, how?
* What can we learn from Rails / Django / TurboGears?
I think that one of the first steps is to agree on who our
target audiences are and target them individually. Zope has
a number of target audences, including:
-
On Sunday 05 March 2006 10:22, Jim Fulton wrote:
My main point is that we need to consider each of these audiences, as
they have separate concerns. We need to be explicit about this and
have messages and technical solutions tailored to each audience.
I agree with that. Our first step is to
Trying to run
python test.py --package=zope.app.component
results in :
Running unit tests:
Ran 318 tests with 0 failures and 0 errors in 6.118 seconds.
Running zope.app.testing.functional.Functional tests:
Set up zope.app.testing.functional.Functional
Traceback (most recent call last):
- Non-technical users who just want to crank our a web application
with little muss and fuss. This was the original focus of Zope 2
and now Plone
I think this is better served by applications on top of Zope, rather than
trying to make the framework sit that close to the user. Like
On 3/5/06, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that one of the first steps is to agree on who our
target audiences are and target them individually. Zope has
a number of target audences, including:
- Non-technical users who just want to crank our a web application
with little
Geoff Davis wrote:
Jeff Shell has posted some thought-provoking pieces on his blog that are
relevant to Jim's recent attempt to better articulate a vision for Zope:
http://griddlenoise.blogspot.com/2006/03/zope-crisis-of-faith-coming-this-march.html
--On 4. März 2006 21:26:30 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/UseConfigParserForHighLevelConfiguration
Is a proposal for using ConfigParser, rather than ZConfig for high-level
configuration.
Comments welcome.
-1
The right way would be to
On 3/5/06, Max M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I could probably do one that is a lot more impressive with an UML tool,
Plone, archetypes and ArchgenXML. And it would most likely last 10
minutes... if I talked very very slowly.
But that is not the point.
YES IT IS! Do it! We need the hype!
--
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/UseConfigParserForHighLevelConfiguration
Is a proposal for using ConfigParser, rather than ZConfig for high-level
configuration.
+0
I see the advantages of using ConfigParser, especially being able to
configure
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 4. März 2006 21:26:30 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/UseConfigParserForHighLevelConfiguration
Is a proposal for using ConfigParser, rather than ZConfig for high-level
configuration.
Comments welcome.
-1
The right
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Saturday 04 March 2006 21:26, Jim Fulton wrote:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/UseConfigParserForHighLevelConfiguration
Is a proposal for using ConfigParser, rather than ZConfig for high-level
configuration.
Comments welcome.
I am +1. Anything that allows us to
--On 5. März 2006 13:56:38 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The right way would be to refactor ZConfig and decouple it in a
reasonable way from its dependencies.
I think this would be a major rewrite.
Possibly but I don't consider that to be a strong argument for introducing
a
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 5. März 2006 13:56:38 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The right way would be to refactor ZConfig and decouple it in a
reasonable way from its dependencies.
I think this would be a major rewrite.
Possibly but I don't consider that to be a strong
Max M wrote:
Geoff Davis wrote:
Jeff Shell has posted some thought-provoking pieces on his blog that are
relevant to Jim's recent attempt to better articulate a vision for Zope:
http://griddlenoise.blogspot.com/2006/03/zope-crisis-of-faith-coming-this-march.html
On Mar 5, 2006, at 11:34 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
My main point is that we need to consider each of these audiences, as
they have separate concerns. We need to be explicit about this and
have messages and technical solutions tailored to each audience.
Do we? Messages, perhaps, but we should
Max M wrote:
Geoff Davis wrote:
Jeff Shell has posted some thought-provoking pieces on his blog that are
relevant to Jim's recent attempt to better articulate a vision for Zope:
http://griddlenoise.blogspot.com/2006/03/zope-crisis-of-faith-coming-this-march.html
--On 5. März 2006 14:43:48 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no question that ZConfig has the
problems you described. But I consider such a flat representation as
poor and a step back
instead of a step forward (independent of the effort needed to simply
and refactor
Geoff Davis wrote:
* What can we learn from Rails / Django / TurboGears?
Fun presentation along those lines:
http://oodt.jpl.nasa.gov/better-web-app.mov
One of the best put together movies I've seen.
--
Benji York
Senior Software Engineer
Zope Corporation
Jim Fulton wrote:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/UseConfigParserForHighLevelConfiguration
Is a proposal for using ConfigParser, rather than ZConfig for high-level
configuration.
+1
This is exactly the kind of innovation via reuse I like.
--
Benji York
Senior Software Engineer
Zope Corporation
Jim Fulton wrote:
It would be fairly easy to provide a simple schema system for
ConfigParser data based on zope.schema for verification and
conversion.
Good idea!
--
Benji York
Senior Software Engineer
Zope Corporation
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
I emailed the committer Friday about this, but no fix has been
forthcoming, so I reverted the offending revisions. Hopefully a revised
version can be reapplied soon.
--
Benji York
Senior Software Engineer
Zope Corporation
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Benji York wrote:
I emailed the committer Friday about this, but no fix has been
forthcoming, so I reverted the offending revisions. Hopefully a revised
version can be reapplied soon.
Still the same problem after your revert !
Jürgen
--
---
28 matches
Mail list logo
