/*checkout*/Zope3/trunk/zopeskel/etc/zope.conf.in?rev=39582
Yes, I noticed this too. They should be the same.
I think that the default ZEO port in zope.conf.in should be
changed to 8100.
Are there any problems with changing it?
Not from me.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL
of a
'lazy' namespace, which is used primariliy for the 'SESSION' object in
Zope 2. How do people feel about adding that to Zope 3?
I'm not familar with this. Where is it documented?
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 06:25:53PM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
| Sidnei da Silva wrote:
| ...
| Sounds good to me. By quickly looking Zope 3's requests have mostly
| the same methods and features from Zope2's. However sems like most
| methods were renamed for consistency (eg
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 07:14:08PM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
| Here's what is in the docstring for HTTPRequest:
|
| - Lazy Data
|
| These are callables which are deferred until explicitly
| referenced, at which point they are resolved and stored
registrations in Zope that depended on this bug and had to be changed.
We should have fixed this in 3.1. I'm sorry we didn't.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http
Jeff Shell wrote:
On 12/13/05, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeff Shell wrote:
Is it related to this? Bug in Multi Adapter Lookup?
http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope3-dev/396
('fixed' in Zope 3.2b1)
That's my suspicion.
That would be my suspicion too. It should be easy to test
Jeff Shell wrote:
On 12/13/05, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeff Shell wrote:
On 12/13/05, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeff Shell wrote:
Is it related to this? Bug in Multi Adapter Lookup?
http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope3-dev/396
('fixed' in Zope 3.2b1)
That's my
too.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev
Jeff Shell wrote:
On 12/13/05, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeff Shell wrote:
...
Going through a lot of debugging, it looks as through it has to do
with how things are ranked in
zope.interface.adapter.AdapterLookup.lookup() for multi-adapters.
Yup.
I don't know enough about
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Jeff Shell wrote:
I understand why this is happening, but it's (obviously) not what I
want to have happen. I want MY skin layer's declaration of
'contents.html' to win out. It actually works for all container types,
so maybe I need to declare
. I suspect that
the decision makers who care about linux would me likely to understand
that the platform doesn't matter that much and that certification for Windows
should make them feel warm and fuzzy about their Linux installations.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
.
This method should be considered an unsupported non-feature that is
likely to go away in the future.
If people feel that they need this, I'd like to see use cases
and a proposal.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714
Jim Fulton wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
...
Ob. note: the performance characteristics of such servers (including
twisted) are not well understood in the context of Zope, until some
brave soul actually rolls out a high-volume production site and reports
success or failure.
Good point
performance for single-adapter lookup and greatly improve
performance for multi-adapter lookup. I expect to be able to report
results in January.
Obviously, this refactoring will render obsolete tools writted
against the current implementation.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
, there is no efficient way to iterate over all objects
in a database, any database, unless the database is small. If we
need to be able to do this, we should design support into the
authorization system that we certify.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO
subscriber
to provide a local effect.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
___
Zope3-dev
Jim Fulton wrote:
...
If we
need to be able to do this, we should design support into the
authorization system that we certify.
I'll note that this implies that the grants are stored centrally.
There are a number of reasons why this might be beneficial.
It's interesting to note that on Unix
Christian Theune wrote:
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 16.12.2005, 07:49 -0500 schrieb Jim Fulton:
Christian Theune wrote:
I think if we can guarantee never to reuse a user id, provide a tool for
doing RIP and we do not provide undo we are fine.
Only if we manage the user ids. We often get
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub
tests before
a checkin because a testbrowser test failed connecting
to google. Needless to say, I'm annoyed.
I'm not gonna delay 3.2 for this, but this needs to be fixed.
Tests should not rely on making a network connection to
anything but localhost.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL
how to return long output and I'm going to add a
method that generates a hopefully helpful error.
Note that we may add this method (or something like it) back in the future
to support chunked streaming output,
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
When we refactored the Zope 3 pubisher to work more closely with WSGI,
we decided to remove the response.write method. We should have written
a proposal for this, but we failed to do so. Over the last few
projects
please update the page. (If you can't update the page, let me know and I'll
provide access.)
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http
Jens Vagelpihl has graciously offered to convert the subversion
repository to use a file-system back end.
The repsository will be inaccessable for some portion of
December 25.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 01:24:54PM -0500, Paul Winkler wrote:
| On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 11:13:31AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
| BTW, your implementation also doesn't work because it doesn't
| set the content length.
|
| Speaking of which, I'd love to see a way to make
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 07:33:13AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
| There are a couple conditions that must be met for 'chunked' to work
| with Zope 2.
|
| 1. A Content-Length header must not be set.
| 2. The request must be HTTP 1.1
| 3. You must be streaming
| 4
or refactoring. Maybe a nice project
for the next release cycle.
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
The __bases__ attribute indicates that a layer builds on other layers.
In that case, the base layers will be setUp before the layer and torn
down after the layer (assuming that the layer and base layers support
tear down.)
So, just to get
business. :)
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3
streaming.
We will revisit all of this in the next release cycle, although I am
confident that simply returning strings or files should be supported
indefinately.
If there are strong objections, let me know ASAP, but I think this is
the lowest risk option.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL
that the adapter is now looked up for the original result, and the
request, rather than just the original result.)
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http
Jeff Shell wrote:
On 12/23/05, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been working on trying to clean up the IResult/response.write mess.
I want to retract IResult from the public API.
Here's what I propose to do:
- Move IResult from zope.publisher.interfaces.http to
zope.publisher.http
be touched by the
HTML designer).
What do you all think?
+1
Views make it much easier to keep Python code in Python modules.
python expressions should be strongly discouraged in ZPT, IMO.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 30. Dezember 2005 11:50:16 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm gonna stay out of this except to note that this discussion should
be happening on the ZPT list (zpt@zope.org), as it affects much more than
Zope 3 (or even Zope for that matter).
Wasn't
debugging sessions.
You are confusing Zope 2 and Zope 3. Zope 2's response.write
does handle large output effciently, Zope 3's did not.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
I could certainly find evidence that you tried, but the implementation
was
actually buffering data in a string buffer until the request was
finished.
This was the case at least as early as spring of 2004.
Even with more than 105 bytes output
Tim Peters wrote:
[Jim Fulton]
I've made a source release of Zope 3.2.0 beta 3. I plan to make a
Windows release tomorrow, when I have access to a windows machine with
a compiler, unless someone beats me to it.
I gave it a try, but it dies near the start of the process:
$ \python24
:
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 10:33, Jim Fulton wrote:
Did we also lose the information when using zope.server? I fear so.
Yep.
Has this been brought up on the Web SIG mailing list?
We originally wanted to wait and try a sample implementation between Twisted
and Zope 3 first. I think
think?
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/jim%40zope.com
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey,
Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
I'm guessing that this is an issue because you install
Zope's into site-packages and you don't want a Zope installed
package to clobber a package that is separately packaged. Is that right?
The normal way to install Zope is in it's own
Martijn Faassen wrote:
...
But the app server does use parts of Zope 3 that *are* libraries, so
perhaps we should start thinking about splitting things up somehow?
Yes, somehow. :) (I wish I had time to master eggs )
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python
Derrick Hudson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 10:10:52AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
| Martijn Faassen wrote:
| Jim Fulton wrote:
[...]
| I'm guessing that this is an issue because you install
| Zope's into site-packages and you don't want a Zope installed
| package to clobber a package
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Christian Theune wrote:
[snip]
Is this intentional?
Yes. self is never proxied.
I'll just note as a data-point that this surprised me as well. I noticed
that some things in Zope 3 weren't giving me authorization errors as I
expected, even
this released
before the end of the month.)
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
___
Zope3
will be formed during this next release cycle,
I think this is a good time to take stock and think about how to move
forward,
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 07:36:35AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
| And then there are the Windows releases. Making Zope 2 windows releases
| is very painful and there don't seem to be many people willing to help.
| We've avoided the pain for Zope 3 by being less ambitious. We
that *I* can do it. This means that the process should
be simple and well documented enough that someone like me can follow it
without thinking. Thinking is hard.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714http
distutils to MSI.
Except that the same sort of problems occurred with 2.8.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
to accept any other format.)
The user experience would be the same, but extending it would be a lot easier
than
extensing ZConfig. I plan to make a proposal for this in the next few days.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714
-- and development is great. I think
eggs are a lot farther along that zpkg. (Eggs weren't around when we started
zpkg.) If eggs work out, as I hope they will, I'd like to stop work on
zpkg and just use eggs.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540
they don't and may never
use. I want Five/Zope2 to not *have* to include packages they don't
need just because we've created monoliths. I especially don't want
to release experimental code through Five/Zope2 just because we don't
have our repository and/or packaging in order.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton
less. I think a more powerful
packaging architecture will make it easeir to include what we want.
Deciding what we want is another issue.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 19 January 2006 07:00, Jim Fulton wrote:
I feel like an old record, but please
let's keep the development process as simple as possible. I rather make
some concessions to the packaging and dependency system than spending
more time developing.
Perhaps
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Friday 20 January 2006 07:36, Jim Fulton wrote:
See:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ZConfigAndOtherFormatsForZCML
Comments and volunteers welcome.
I am +1.
However, there is another risk. If we support multiple formats then that means
that a developer will have
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:36:19AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
See:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ZConfigAndOtherFormatsForZCML
...We'll register the options object as a utility.
To the extent that we want to keep using an object like that,
option handlers would save
we're doing now wrt headers.
I'm 99% sure that we are not rejecting any checkin mail.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
Fred Drake wrote:
On 1/21/06, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
are really attributes of foo. In ZCML, this might have been:
foo
x=1
y=2
/
Except this breaks down in the case of ZConfig multikey elements,
which allow configuration like this:
foo
x = 1
x = 2
Alexander Limi wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 04:15:43 -0800, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ZConfigAndOtherFormatsForZCML
-1 from me, I see this as being a way to have another split in how
things are done, and that different products will use different syntax
Fred Drake wrote:
On 1/22/06, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you understand that this proposal isn't proposing any new syntaxes?
Do I understand correctly that you're proposing adding a way to spell
ZConfig configuration schema using ZCML?
No, I'm proposing replacing the ZConfig
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
See:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ZConfigAndOtherFormatsForZCML
Comments and volunteers welcome.
I like this proposal. It is likely to reduce the total amount of code.
However, I want to be sure that consolidating engines
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 10:58:43AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
Jeff Shell wrote:
But I'm really starting to get frustrated with a lot of the elements
in the ZCML browser: namespace.
(snip)
To a large extent, they were failed experiments. Just stop using them.
Eek. How
Jim Fulton wrote:
See:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ZConfigAndOtherFormatsForZCML
I'm retracting this pending a rewrite.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http
we're going to reimplement ZConfig.
In the short term, you might try teasing out the app and server from Zope
and see if you could wire them up with Paste Deploy.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714http
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
I think that the way the server and app are integrated needs to be
rethought.
I think we need to look at how to leverage Paste Deploy in Zope.
I hate to mention this with all of the discussion about ZConfig, but
we should probably consider
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 05:28:14PM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
| There are a bunch of issues to be resolved, like the fact that it's
| not possible to access the initial ZConfig options object because it's
| thrown away, so, in order of priority:
|
| 1. It's not possible
require a update of Twisted to the trunk. But
then we can do what we are doing now and just have svn:external pointing to a
specific revision of the Twisted trunk.
+1
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714http
.
At that point, you have only one password field in your model, but the
form can still deal with password double-entry in reasonable ways.
+10
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation
concept of a customsiable
standard_error_message, but maybe I'm missing something :-S
Yes you are. In Zope 3, you can define an error view per error
type, including a default view for Exception. This is wildly more
flexible and easier to manage than in Zope 2.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 02 February 2006 07:38, Jim Fulton wrote:
Comments and questions are welcome.
I like the proposal in general. The big missing use case that is missing for
me is the task of unregistering or reregistering a persistent component. In
the ZODB I need
Dominik Huber wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 02 February 2006 07:38, Jim Fulton wrote:
Comments and questions are welcome.
I like the proposal in general. The big missing use case that is
missing for me is the task of unregistering or reregistering a
persistent component
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
I've posted a proposal to simplify local component management at:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/LocalComponentManagementSimplification
Comments and questions are welcome.
I like the proposal.
I'm trying to figure out what this means exactly
Dominik Huber wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
I've updated the proposed APIs. I changed wording from provide to
register
as unprovide doesn't make sense. (This also conglicts less with
existing APIs.)
I like the new wording. Do you offer the new wording within the zapi
too?
I'd prefer to get
Dominik Huber wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
One issue with subscribers currently is that ZCML subscriber directives
can't be overridden. We need a fix for this.
In my understanding this usecase is covered by the new implementation,
isn't it?
What new implementation?
Jim
--
Jim Fulton
ago.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev
could admit defeat and maintain the book in an accessible format like
Word or Open Office. :)
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub
Fred Drake wrote:
On 2/3/06, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*Or* you could admit defeat and maintain the book in an accessible format like
Word or Open Office. :)
There's the question of accessible to whom? here.
Right. I was refering to that small subset of computer users
who have
release is scheduled for May and
the next feature freeze is April 1.
- We will support deprecated features for 1 year.
I consider there to be decisions. :)
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714http
sophisticated, or, more importantly, not technically interested,
they peobably would prefer to just drop something into a special
directory and be done with it.
In summary, I think we need *both* approaches, as they serve different
needs.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
Rob Jeschofnik wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
In summary, I think we need *both* approaches, as they serve different
needs.
I'd have to agree... so +1
.. but I'd suggest that the application/plugin should have a way of
defining which ways it can (or prefers, if it can't be enforced
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Some recent discussions on the distutils-sig mailing list have
helped me to understand some issues related to the ways we
extend the Zope application server. Traditionally, in Zope 2,
you extended Zope by dropping product packages
the temptation to respond to this post and drag out this
discussion further.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
be able to participare in long drawn out discussions.
I'm hoping for a very productive week at PyCon. :)
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http
by zope-dev.
Okay, who actually makes this call and how to we set a date?
Only you and Philipp were excited about this. Not sure that
constitutes a ringing endorsement. Maybe others will chime in now.
I'm +10 too.
I'd like to see this happen before the end of the year.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton
be confusion about 2 Zopes.
It is important that Zope 5 be backward compatible with both Zope 2
and Zope 3, although not necessarily in the same
configuration. Many people are building Zope 3 applications today
and they should not be penalized.
Thoughts?
Jim
--
Jim Fulton
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
affect python code.
I don't think a proposal is really needed for this.
We aren't going to move any others for now. We're doing the
eggsploration on a branch and will certainly provide a proposal
before doing anything permanent.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
are you talking about?
now we want to make another one.
We also just started to position the Zope 3 name and software correctly in
the market
I'm so reassured. I had the opposite impression.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 3/1/06, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's your point? That we shouldn't plan? That we shouldn't
have a common vision for where we're going, or communicate that
vision?
Well, not neccesarily. Things change, and the plan for the future has
not always been
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 10:06, Jim Fulton wrote:
I don't see how *saying* what Zope 5 will contain will make it *exist*
any time sooner.
You seem to be arguing against a roadmap, which is puzzling.
I don't think Martijn is arguing against a roadmap, he just
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
At:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/UseConfigParserForHighLevelConfiguration
Is a proposal for using ConfigParser, rather than ZConfig for high-level
configuration.
Comments welcome.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714
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
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
tailored to each audience.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
___
Zope3-dev mailing
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
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
201 - 300 of 768 matches
Mail list logo
