I'm just a tiny little bit confused here, what is a view and what is a
resource - in Zope2 and in Zope3 ?
Maybe I just don't know enough about Zope3 (or 2), but to me what JM calls a
view is a resource, and vice
versa... anyway, I think it's a good idea to have the conceptual discussion
now
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 18:46:29 -, Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'd love to see this At some point I want to do something that lets you
optionally use .conf format instead of .zcml, I reckon the above would
help but my foo is way too low right now to be able to help out with it
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 14:54:55 -, Shane Hathaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
FWIW, I still hate ZCML for the following reasons:
Everyone seems to agree on the direction suggested here:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 13:30:19 -, Rocky Burt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, there is another risk. If we support multiple formats then
that means
that a developer will have to understand all of them, because if he
wants to
use another package that uses format X but he is used to format
Chris Withers chris at simplistix.co.uk writes:
Rocky Burt wrote:
I was about to make that same point. Having to know how to use two
different configuration types makes getting started harder.
...well, I'll say it again, you have to know both of these anyway
Except ZConfig on/off
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:16:13 -, Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Commercial development tools typically have pretty decent XML support,
and if
you were to write e.g. a ZCML editor as an Eclipse plug in, being able
to rely
on existing XML components would be much easier.
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 14:58:02 -, Alexander Limi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please don't include the Reset functionality in HTML forms. It is
absolutely useless, and is considered one of the classic usability
mistakes. Just say no, kids!
Agreed. Hands up anyone who ever clicked one?
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 17:27:43 -, Shane Hathaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Friday 03 February 2006 12:14, Shane Hathaway wrote:
Andreas Zeidler wrote:
On Fri, Feb 03 17:24, Encolpe Degoute [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Zope 3 / Revolution ?
well, how about
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 22:37:45 -, Shane Hathaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Alexander Limi wrote:
The original discussion never suggested code names for releases, but a
brand name to help Zope 3 separate itself from Zope 2 - since it is a
*completely* different beast.
Random
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 18:40:51 -, Shane Hathaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
An idea just occurred to me. I think others have probably had similar
ideas, but didn't express it in the right place or time.
Part 1: Let's put an Apache-like web root
Part 2: Let's add some ZCML directives
Hi,
Let me play devil's advocate for just a moment Let me run around for a
while like a headless chicken. Please don't shoot me, I'm actually quite
in love with Zope 3. But I can see myself having this argument many times
in the future, so I'd like some good answers.
As a developer, I
Forward compatibility is a myth, it doesn't exist.
I would tend to agree. However, the degree of compatability and the time
spans in questions are under the development team's control. It may, at
some point, become more important to ensure continuity than to perfect
things. Extreme
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:39:01 -, Sidnei da Silva
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:30:29PM -, Martin Aspeli wrote:
| So, I'm serving static content like Apache, I'm interpreting file types
| like Apache and I'm using .htaccess files like Apache. But I'm using
Zope
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 10:39:52 -, Lennart Regebro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
things. Extreme example: In Plone the core Plone product is called
CMFPlone. It pisses Alexander off. Should we rename it 'Plone' and thus
break every product that ever imported from CMFPlone? Should we make a
jungle
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:49:55 -, Shane Hathaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So, I'm serving static content like Apache, I'm interpreting file
types like Apache and I'm using .htaccess files like Apache. But I'm
using Zope.
Why am I not just using Apache?
Would I be learning this beast
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:56:23 -, Shane Hathaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Wade Leftwich wrote:
+1 from the standpoint of promoting corporate adoption, especially when
combined with first-class citizenship for RDBMS. (In the corporation I
work for, anyway.)
Yes, RDBMS would become a
Martijn Faassen faassen at infrae.com writes:
What happens if you want to add your own statements? Should you still
do that in your own namespace?
No. But I don't think that it'll be much of a problem. I expect that not a
lot
of 3rd party packages will need their own set of ZCML
Philipp von Weitershausen philipp at weitershausen.de writes:
The problem is uncontrolled ZCML directive proliferation. It's bad enough
that you have to familiarize yourself with a new API when dealing with a 3rd
party Zope package. But having to learn a new set of ZCML directives?!? I
think
Philipp von Weitershausen philipp at weitershausen.de writes:
I'm not arguing (here) against refactoring the namespaces in which
core directives are declared. I'm arguing against the idea that
namespaces are bad in general.
I'm not arguing that either. I'm just saying that one
Gary Poster gary at zope.com writes:
On Feb 13, 2006, at 10:05 AM, Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Monday 13 February 2006 08:36, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
[...]
+1 to Stephan's comment, Tres' comment, and
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 07:51:34 -, Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Scripts and RBDMS are the fast food of the web development world, not
the salad. Looks nice, tastes great, eventually leaves you fat and
unhealthy. ZODB and maybe an ORM is the greens for me, it might not be
to
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 00:30:03 -, Shaun Cutts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It seems to me that some of the tension around zcml arises because, on
the one hand, everyone wants it to be as simple as possible, and on the
other, too much simplicity of the language makes some things very
tedious,
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 23:45:24 -, Shane Hathaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
User interfaces speak louder than books. Start up Zope 3, log in as a
manager, and look at the list of things you can add. It includes DTML
Page, File, Image, Python Page, SQL Script, and ZPT Page. I suggest
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 21:28:09 -, Stephan Richter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have spent the last two weeks working on a proposal that defines a Zope
Software Certification Program (ZSCP) and a Common Repository that
implements
this process. The proposal is attached to this mail. I welcome
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 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.
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
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)
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 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. What
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 19:39:50 -, Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Windows, Windows 98/NT/ME/CE/2000/2003/XP,
All of which have the same brandname... Windows, same with Office.
I hear of Avalon/Longhorn
Longhorn is a codename, it's now called Windows Vista.
Avalon is a UI
- 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 Thu, 09 Mar 2006 15:44:56 -, Paul Winkler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 02:38:48PM +0100, Paul Everitt wrote:
One little Python script, maintained as part of the standard
distribution, referred to ubiquitously as the right way to start, would
have more impact on
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 00:49:19 -, Marius Gedminas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think this is exactly the same as Jeff Shell's suggestion, but its
3am, and I'm too tired to read his entire message.
I find I have that problem even at more sociable hours of the day
(depending on whom you
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 08:56:54 -, Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Before this merge goes through, I would propose the following steps:
Take the document and edit it so it's a clear guide for what you should
do with broken directives. I.e. for browser:localUtility we want to
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 03:31:59 -, Sidnei da Silva
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yum Yum. That reminds me of Archetypes-Hum.
Was that an endorsement or criticism? :)
Martin
--
(muted)
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub:
Hi Stephan!
Nate sent just a message that I am interested in a SoC project with the
Plone
Foundation. Okay, let me write something too.
It feels almost like cheating, since you're likely to know more than any
potential mentor about the stuff you're working on, but I think it'd be a
On Sat, 06 May 2006 21:14:57 +0100, Gary Poster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey all. Seems like no-one but ZC has used zope.bforest, and it
probably fits better in the a million itsy-bitsy projects story now
that we have it (and an accompanying automated test story). Anyone
object if I move
On Mon, 15 May 2006 18:49:24 +0100, Jeff Rush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I looked at MochiKit and studied the Async package, but perhaps I didn't
understand it. I only saw ways for the client to sneak HTTP REQUESTSs
to the server behind the user's back, but nothing for the server to
reach
On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 14:52:40 +0100, Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Personally I'm not looking for a solution for Zope 2.9 or 2.10 as PTS
and PloneLanguageTool solve all these use-cases right now, but are hard
to extend, impossible to re-use and you know Zope2 ;)
Well, these are my
Hi guys,
I just started using zope.testbrowser and zope.testrecorder for doing
integration tests. The case study is Ploneboard, the long-overdue
message board for Plone, which has a workflow maze to compete with the
best of them. Permissions control actions like reply, delete, edit and
Daniel Nouri wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
[...]
o In zope.testrecorder, the ability to add comments that become DocTest
comments is a stroke of genius. What I'd love to see, though, is the
ability to add assertions for text. Basically, if I could mark some text
in the browser and have
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Benji York wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
o In zope.testbrowser, [snip] having the ability to select nodes
by XPATH would be incredibly useful
Yep, I and others have thought the same thing.
I imagine an existing
library would be available to make
Hi,
I've got a situation where a form submit will eventually end up in an
action that does (in Zope 2):
context.REQUEST.RESPONSE.redirect('/path/to/foo/#bar')
This works fine through the web, but using zope.testbrowser, the # gets
converted to %23 (which is the correct urlencoding
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Jul 31, 2006, at 2:02 PM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
...
If you ask me, the slipping of the Zope 3 June release is mostly due to
the lack of a release manager. If we had a release manager who'd kick
people's asses, we might have more betas since the first one and we
Martijn Faassen wrote:
So, my proposal for Zope 3.4:
* have a developer_notes file or directory somewhere.
* let this contain the developer-visible changes.
* it should be focused on how to change your code. That's the important
bit. Motivations and such might also be useful to
baiju m-2 wrote:
This document is maintained as a wiki page, so anyone can edit it.
http://kpug.zwiki.org/WhatIsNewInZope33
This is great! It's probably exactly what we need.
Martin
--
View this message in context:
Rocky Burt wrote:
Thanks Hanno!
I don't think we should take Hanno for granted (not that you do) - he
does some incredible work, and he's always done it without anyone asking
him to do so. It benefits Plone more than people realise, and we're
really fortunate. If Hanno was less generuos or
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
What do you think about a 9 month release cycle?
Based on the Plone experience I think this is a good compromise, between
release often and stable releases.
The Plone experience as I see it is that we get some measure of
contribution fatigue.
Take Plone 2.5 and
Benji York wrote:
Personally I think we should just release the trunk every six months
(with a list of known bugs) and that be it. (I'm speaking of Zope 3
here, I don't know enough about the dynamics of the Zope 2 ecosystem to
comment there.)
What good could that possibly do?
For the
Jeff Shell wrote:
Compare:
- http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/RoadMap
- http://www.sqlalchemy.org/trac/milestone/0.3.0?by=severity
Or dev.plone.org. Trac is pretty nice, especially as an svn browser and
for the roadmap view. The issue tracker is quite good (could be better,
but works fairly
Hi Jim,
I have some wiki desires of my own that I'll probably never realize:
- HTML WYSIWYG Wikis that don't use any form os structures text (small s)
and just use an HTML editor. I think that structured text of any kind
is an obstacle to Wiki use. Moin moin's markup rules drive me as
Chris Withers wrote:
Now, related to this, say I have content objects X and Y, which are
expensive to set up. I have LayerX which sets up a sample content object
X, and LayerY which does the same for content object Y. This is fine for
tests which need one or other content type, but how
Paul Winkler wrote:
This sounds like something that could stand being talked about
in public more often... I've never heard of Zope Grok :)
Me Grok... me SMASH ZCML!
Martin
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub:
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
And there is nothing wrong with using inheritance when there is a '__IS
A __' type of relation (e.g. an ordered folder IS A folder IS AN item,
...), or if there is a HAS_A type of relation (a folder has items, a
chair has four legs...). It seems that Zope3 has
OT: Thunderbird makes a real mess of interpreter examples, thinking the
'' is an indent and making it a coloured line. Anyone got an idea how I
stop it from doing that?
Martin
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub:
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
but conceptually it is the same mess :-) i.e. a total lack of
specification. It only looks nicer with interfaces.
So, in other words (and in summary of previous blog posts):
- New techniques complement, rather than completely replace, old
techniques
- New
Chris Withers wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
...hence the quotes. It's a function in that I want to use it as an
adapter that doesn't need to be instantiated by a factory before being
used.
All adapters need to be instantiated.
Why?
def myStrAdapter(something):
Chris Withers wrote:
What's the difference between zope:view, browser:view, browser:page and
browser:viewlet?
I would strongly encourage you to buy Philipp's book when the second edition
comes out, and read some of the available existing documents (e.g.
worldcookery.com, the Zope 3 wiki
Jim Fulton wrote:
Some thoughts on Zope 3, Zope 3 applications, and Zope 3 instances
I found this very interesting. As more of an indirect consumer to Zope 3
(but user of Zope 3 via Five and developer of Plone on Zope 2), here are
some of my own thoughts.
In the Zope2/CMF/Plone world, we
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
...
Anyway - I hope these perspectives are useful. I'm certainly not
disagreeing
with what you're saying or with the direction you're pointing out. I
think
we just need be mindful that there were some good things about the past
approaches as well
Martijn Faassen wrote:
My hope is that with Grok we can inject some sensibilities into Zope 3
that focus more on getting things done easily and quickly. I think that
the basis built with an attitude of reusable and flexible components is
great to build a powerful getting things done easily
Paul Everitt wrote:
Thus, telling the Zope 3 core team to own and distribute the killer app
is neither realistic nor fair. Move Zope 3 to its natural turf and
collaborate with folks that feel passionate about other turf.
Application != the framework.
A very good point. Perhaps the future
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
We had a Grok sprint in Germany over the weekend, and we got two reports
about it:
Rock on :)
What is the current state of the art in terms of Grok examples and
documentation? What is the best place to look to find out about the
latest development
Peter Bengtsson wrote:
Philipp has posted a blog entry with a good example of Grok code:
http://www.z3lab.org/sections/blogs/philipp-weitershausen/2007_01_09_you-thought-zope-3-wasn
Gorgeous!
I especially like that you don't have to manually define the template
since it's picked up
Chris Withers wrote:
Hi All,
I was wondering if someone could give me a definitive explanation of
what the following means:
adapter
for=* ISomething *
...
...means?
Is the following equivalent:
provideAdapter(...,adapts=(None,ISomething,None),...)
No, but this
Chris Withers wrote:
Hi All,
It's been way too long since I did that, but how do I go about getting
an svn checkout of Zope 3 that I can develop with? Is there a how-to
somehwere?
I'd imagine it goes something like:
1 - checkout svn url you wish to develop with
2 - do some
Jim Fulton wrote:
I *really* want to be able to have the current Zope 3 application
assembled entirely from eggs by the end of PyCon.
Me too! :) Not that I'm helping (much?), but the Plone people are
getting all excited about eggs. We even have a monstrous Plone egg that
contains all of
Hi,
This is most likely just something gone wrong with my test setup, but I
thought I'd ask just in case I've hit some obscure bug.
Basically, I have a test that uses PloneTestCase and ZopeTestCase on
Zope 2.10, with a layer that loads site.zcml. The ZCML for my package
registers a
Chris Withers wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Interesting. plone.portlets actually uses the Component Architecture and
a persistent registry as the underlying plugin system, it just
provides a fancy UI on top of this to manipulate the registry.
Is this an adapter registry, a utility
Hi guys,
I'm pretty sure you're not allowed dots in ids of HTML elements. At
least not when they are prefixed by 'form'. A zope.schema.TextLine in a
formlib form, for example, generates HTML like this:
input id=form.title class=textType type=text value=Changed
title size=20
Tres Seaver wrote:
I'm pretty sure you're not allowed dots in ids of HTML elements.
The attached HTML and XHTML pages both pass the W3C validator (one HTMl
4.01 strict, the other XHTML 1.0 strict). Both use dotted IDs for form
elements. Neither renders properly in Firefox 1.5 (the
Andreas Reuleaux wrote:
Try
#form\.title
I had no idea you could do this. Thank you! It works like a charm. I'll
shut up now. :)
Martin
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Dear developers of Zope,
Google is doing Summer of Code this year again. With an entity like the
Zope Foundation in place, Zope could participate for the first time.
Awesome :)
I was involved in running Plone's process last year, and will probably
do so
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
On 5 Mar 2007, at 09:48 , Christian Theune wrote:
I've added myself too.
Thanks.
I'd be interested in having some ZODB problem,
although I'd like not to put the 'clean up the interfaces' burden
onto a
student project that ought to be interesting.
Christian Theune-2 wrote:
It's on the ZODB trunk already for a while. The current trunk is going
to be ZODB 3.8 and was already released as an alpha. And it will be the
ZODB that ships with Zope 2.11.
Wonderful :-)
I'm currently writing up a proposal for an extended Blob version
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Mar 29, 2007, at 6:30 AM, Baiju M wrote:
Hi,
There are few deprecated packages in zope.app namespace, should we
create individual eggs for those packages ?
Yes.
What about creating a single egg with all deprecated packges ?
-1. We should be able to create the
Jim Fulton wrote:
I think we need to have a much more basic discussion.
IMO deprecation was a reasonable thing to try that hasn't really
worked out well. People find deperecation warnings to be very
annoying and I don't think it's going to be practical to make
Hi guys,
Not sure if I need to file these as bugs or not, but:
1. In zope.component.interfaces, unregisterHandler() is defined as:
def unregisterHandler(handler=None, adapts=None, name=u''):
but the implementation in registry.py is:
def unregisterHandler(self, factory=None, required=None,
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
I think we need some tools for this first. something that allows us
to say:
for packages x, y, and z do the following: Create a tag, change
setup.py, and
then create the egg. If we do not have this tool, every release
will be a
major pain.
For 3.4, such
Tres Seaver wrote:
I think you just proved Martin's point: in my experience, maintaining
other people's AT-based code is like Napoleon before Moscow: thigh deep
in freezing mud.
By AT, I assume you mean Archetypes, and Archetypes doesn't depend on code
generation, nor is it very hard
Christian Theune wrote:
Hi,
I took Martin's script and adapted it for this release.
Heh, I've been doing open source for a few years now, but I still get a
slight buzz when someone from outside my core constituency makes use
of some code I've written. :)
Glad it worked out. If you have
Leonardo Rochael wrote:
If someone else presents me with an alternative zcml configuration for my
package that was useful for their project, I can put this zcml file in my
package for others to include when using it, instead of my default
configuration. If there are parts in common between the
Brian Sutherland wrote:
It's just going to get very difficult very quickly to manage such a meta
egg with over 100 or so dependencies. Though I guess there'll be
automated tools to manage this.
Better we do the difficult part than each and every user does it. In the
ideal world, there are no
Brian Sutherland wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 11:59:37PM +0100, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Brian Sutherland wrote:
It's just going to get very difficult very quickly to manage such a meta
egg with over 100 or so dependencies. Though I guess there'll be
automated tools to manage this.
Better we
Christian Theune wrote:
If anybody wants to take on one of the ones named above, feel free to
use Jim's template for zope.app packages which lives
in /Sandbox/J1m/zope.app-template.
Have you guys thought about using Paste Script to create new packages?
We do this for virtually all new Plone
Christophe Combelles wrote:
Hello,
Many zcml directives have a for attribute, which take an interface as
argument. Absent-minded people like me sometimes happen to put a real class
instead of an interface in the for attributes.
* On browser:page, one can put a real class with no error. Is
Fred Drake wrote:
I think site is widely understood term in Zope 3 now and everyone knows
about it. We gain absolutely nothing by renaming it. I think zope.site
would be a great package name for ISite and friends.
Widely understood, yes. Frankly, I've *never* liked it, because it
doesn't
Jim Fulton wrote:
I'm about to make a new release of zc.buildout that uses a different
policy for selecting distributions. In particular, by default,
zc.buildout will now prefer final distributions over non-final ones.
If there are final and non-final distributions that satisfy a
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Deliverables
* zc.buildout's extends mechanism would have to be enhanced to be able
to load files from HTTP locations.
Apparently this already works, I just tested it. I did not bother trying
this out before
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
The ExtensionClass changes are not done,
and I think there are other C-level changes which have not
It was never said whether Zope 2 would be part of the GSoC
Hi Philipp,
- It only works through buildout. Ideally it would be supported at the
setuptools level, imho.
I'm not really convinced that that's necessary. From a practical
perspective, zc.buildout is the defacto deployment tool in the Zope
community.
Alas, not so for all Plone people:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
I trust by this approach you mean the EGG-INFO approach? Because the
stuff I proposed originally already works...
Actually, I meant your proposal: I'd like to see a concrete example of
it, and a workable process/policy for managing releases in this way; and
Chris Withers wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Sep 5, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
I'm very much against making setuptools *more* complicated than it
already is.
Indeed, but surely managing known good sets of components comes
under its remit of version management?
Lennart Regebro wrote:
I'm hoping that Guido will see the errors of his ways, and introduce a
Python 2.7 that has more forwards compatibility than what has been
promised for 2.6, so that there can be a useable overlap between
Python 2.7 and 3.0. Maybe a 3.1 with some more backwards
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 05:39:45PM +0100, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Has there been a strong statement that there won't be a Python 2.7 and
beyond? Will Python 2.x be actively killed off?
Quite the opposite, Guido proposed last year to do 2.7, 2.8, and 2.9.
After that it's
Roger Ineichen wrote:
Heads up,
Please review this proposal. I'll implement it
shortly if nobody has objections. We need it for
our work here at the Foliage sprint.
If you have objections, please tell me what
you think is not well done and tell me your
ideas to solve the problem in another
Roger Ineichen wrote:
* Simply *ignore* that they exist. Zope actually has
facilities for doing this on a technical basis. Simply don't
inherit your skin from IDefaultBrowserLayer, and voila, you
won't get any pre-configured views at all.
I can't have unused code in our codebase. We have
Hj Jeff,
Okay - I'd like to restate my position. :-)
I think you're right - having different names for each release (Zope 3.2 = Blah, Zope 3.3 = Foo) *is* a bad idea, it creates confusion, especially in a framework with frequent releases. So -1 on that from me from now on. :)
However...
Jeff
Max M wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 2/7/06, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, it would only make people go What, first Zope 2, then Zope 3, now
Zope Zimba? thinking it's three different things.
But always writing it Zope3 might be helpful.
Telling that there is a difference
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
