> I think that all of us would be well-served by a better differentiation
> between Zope 2 and Zope 3.
Not as long as the main vision of the community is to make them less
different. :-)
--
Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo http://www.nuxeo.com/
CPS Content Management http://www.cps-project.org/
___
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 09:58 +0100, Christian Theune wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, 2006-02-05 at 12:11 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
A while ago, we had some discussion on when to make releases and
how long to support deprecated features. The discussion has died down
so I'll summarize what
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 20:39:54 +0100, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> Technology-wise:
>
[snip]
>
> This, as far as I can see, is compatible with 99% of the visions we
> have discussed here, and it will keep us busy for a year. :-)
I like your summary. It sounds consistent with both Jim's proposed visi
On Mar 2, 2006, at 4:58 PM, Michael Kerrin wrote:
Hi Gary,
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 15:33, Gary Poster wrote:
On Mar 1, 2006, at 10:13 AM, Michael Kerrin wrote:
so it doesn't get to the locking tests (which will fail) but this
is good
thing to aim at :-)
Hey Michael. What are you planni
Hi Gary,
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 15:33, Gary Poster wrote:
> On Mar 1, 2006, at 10:13 AM, Michael Kerrin wrote:
> > so it doesn't get to the locking tests (which will fail) but this
> > is good
> > thing to aim at :-)
>
> Hey Michael. What are you planning to do with the locking stuff?
> I'd l
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 19:31:38 -, Stefane Fermigier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Strange how (most of) the Plone people seem to be so quick in willing to
sacrifice the Zope brand :(
I don't think that's true. I'm certainly not, and I've not heard anyone
directly in favour of that either. Wha
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 13:13:03 -, Rocky Burt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1) The Zope 3 name and brand is a marketing disaster (from my
perspective) -- to be honest there's really no way I could see this
actually getting worse by coming up with a new name. How many times in
the #plone channel
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 16:18:27 -, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Zope is a agile flexible extensible app server with rich services.
You forgot "Enterprise".
Martin
--
(muted)
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 19:39:54 -, Lennart Regebro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Technology-wise:
1. Zope2 uses more and more of Zope3s technologies. Anything that can
be merged gets merged. That means security, pagetemplates and the
publisher, and maybe more. Basically, we want to strip Zope2
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 17:44:36 -, Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I would encourage all Zope developers to print out Martijn's post and hang
it on the wall over their monitors. Please, no more empty promises that
scare people. :)
Martin
--
(muted)
__
1) Audience==Middle class: Keep the name Zope to apply to the
application server and the middle class. Basically, Zope is the
assembly.
2) Audience==Python: Pick a new name for the top-level package of
components. For example: "zed3" for the naming. E.g.
zed3.pagetemplates. (Examples:
On Thursday 02 March 2006 14:39, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> 4. We develop TTW development tools for Zope3. I think me and Jim both
> agree we should have these. I think me and Jim has a completely
> different vision of what they should be. :)
Note that WebDev is *a* R&D project aimed at discovering
On Thursday 02 March 2006 12:44, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> I would suggest stability in our message for now. I believe the current
> situation is not ideal, but workable. Let's not rename things just when
> we've finally, in 2005, reached a situation when at least core
> developers on Zope 2 and Zop
Benji York wrote:
>> Good point. There's the question: Does this "zed" thing need a different
>> name at all? If we want other people to pick it up, then it seems like a
>> good idea to distinguish it from Zope-the-app-server. Paul seems to
>> suggest that in his response.
>>
>> How about zopelib?
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 11:49:31 -, Lennart Regebro
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This should be Zope3 as it is now. A couple of things can go away.
Maybe the rotterdam skin, I don't know. Definitely the default Folder
objects and such. People, especially Zope2 people, think that you are
supposed
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Good point. There's the question: Does this "zed" thing need a different
name at all? If we want other people to pick it up, then it seems like a
good idea to distinguish it from Zope-the-app-server. Paul seems to
suggest that in his response.
How about zopelib?
Stefane Fermigier wrote:
> Strange how (most of) the Plone people seem to be so quick in willing to
> sacrifice the Zope brand :(
It's not about sacrificing the Zope-the-app-server brand. It's actually
about growing it in the sense that it becomes much clearer WHAT THE HELL
Zope actually is. Or ca
I'm so confused by all the names and stuff that I find it hard to
answer to what somebody is saying, so I will just state *my* vision of
the future.
Technology-wise:
1. Zope2 uses more and more of Zope3s technologies. Anything that can
be merged gets merged. That means security, pagetemplates an
Stefane Fermigier wrote:
>>I think that the idea of giving Zed its own, distinct identity is great.
>
> I think it is stupid.
>
> We (Zope Corp + the Zope Community) have spent 8 years building the Zope
> brand, and you want to restart from scratch ?
Good point. There's the question: Does this "
Strange how (most of) the Plone people seem to be so quick in willing to
sacrifice the Zope brand :(
S.
--
Stéfane Fermigier, Tel: +33 (0)6 63 04 12 77 (mobile).
Nuxeo Collaborative Portal Server: http://www.nuxeo.com/cps
Gestion de contenu web / portail collaboratif / groupware / open source!
Hi there,
I've been thinking a lot about the various things said in the vision
discussion. Lots of people said things I agree with, but other things
were said that make me worry a lot (losing brand-identity and useful
names), and so on. Here I sketch out some of my thoughts.
Reading back thr
Paul Everitt wrote:
...
People have it set in their brain that Zope is a monolithic web
application server. Hard to dispel that meme.
Yup. I'd rather adjust the meme to:
Zope is a agile flexible extensible app server with rich services.
:)
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTEC
Geoff Davis wrote:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 10:38:03 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
I think that the idea of giving Zed its own, distinct identity is great.
Zope 3 is a _huge_ overhaul and it needs to be obvious to the world that
it is dramatically better than crufty old Zope 2. Zope 3 then becomes the
Geoff Davis wrote:
> Yes, and the use of the new name "Z" or "Zed" is a way to emphasize that
> the Zed library is NOT a big, monolithic app server; rather, it's
> something new and cool.
>
Zope 3 is new and cool.
Or at least, let's spin it this way.
Screencasts, podcasts, 14'59" wikis (quick
Stefane Fermigier wrote:
Geoff Davis wrote:
I think that the idea of giving Zed its own, distinct identity is great..
I think it is stupid.
We (Zope Corp + the Zope Community) have spent 8 years building the Zope
brand, and you want to restart from scratch ?
Hehe, poor Geoff. :)
In the pas
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 10:38:03 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
>> I think that the idea of giving Zed its own, distinct identity is great.
>> Zope 3 is a _huge_ overhaul and it needs to be obvious to the world that
>> it is dramatically better than crufty old Zope 2. Zope 3 then becomes the
>> Zed applic
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, P
Geoff Davis wrote:
+1 on Jim's suggestion #2.
However, if I am understanding things correctly, it doesn't really sound
like door #2 entails a huge deviation from from our current course of
bringing Zope 2 and Zope 3 together gradually. I don't really care what
the converged product is called, b
On Thursday 02 March 2006 10:29, Stefane Fermigier wrote:
> Geoff Davis wrote:
> > I think that the idea of giving Zed its own, distinct identity is great.
>
> I think it is stupid.
Me too!!
Regards,
Stephan
--
Stephan Richter
CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student)
We
Geoff Davis wrote:
> I think that the idea of giving Zed its own, distinct identity is great.
I think it is stupid.
We (Zope Corp + the Zope Community) have spent 8 years building the Zope
brand, and you want to restart from scratch ?
S.
--
Stéfane Fermigier, Tel: +33 (0)6 63 04 12 77 (mobil
+1 on Jim's suggestion #2.
However, if I am understanding things correctly, it doesn't really sound
like door #2 entails a huge deviation from from our current course of
bringing Zope 2 and Zope 3 together gradually. I don't really care what
the converged product is called, be it Zope 2.250 or Zo
Am 02.03.2006 um 14:13 schrieb Rocky Burt:
On Tue, 2006-28-02 at 13:21 +0100, 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 e
On Tue, 2006-28-02 at 13:21 +0100, 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
The idea has some benefits, but I'm not very sure it's a good idea. If
it should be implemented, this is how I would like to see it:
On 3/2/06, Jeff Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - Zope 3 CA: The Zope Component Architecture. Core services. Would
> include zope.publisher and most other curre
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'
proj
On 3/1/06, Stephan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 March 2006 07:03, Mohsen Moeeni wrote:
> > I am afraid:
> > chooser.checkName(name, container)
> >
> > Must be:
> > chooser.checkName(name, content)
>
> This is correct; please file a bug report.
>
Here it is:
http://www.zope
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 00:42:14 -, Jeff Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Personally, I still find it hard to know where the line goes between the
ZMI and my own UI code, if I should be extending the ZMI or replacing it.
Perhaps because I'm tainted by Zope 2's idea of the ZMI, though.
Per
37 matches
Mail list logo
