David Pratt wrote at 2007-10-8 00:21 -0300:
>Zope 2 is one application among many dependent upon zope 3.
>Zope 3 is different software than zope 2.
I do not argue with you that Zope3 is "different software than Zope 2".
What I argue about is "Zope 2 is an application".
I have seen hundreds of ap
On 10/8/07, David Pratt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Dieter. Zope 2 is one application among many dependent upon zope 3.
> Zope 3 is different software than zope 2. It has a community of pure
> zope 3 developers (that I don't believe the suggestion of folding the
> lists together adequately cons
Hi Dieter. Zope 2 is one application among many dependent upon zope 3.
Zope 3 is different software than zope 2. It has a community of pure
zope 3 developers (that I don't believe the suggestion of folding the
lists together adequately considers).
Folks have been developing and collaborating o
David Pratt wrote at 2007-10-7 12:17 -0300:
> ...
>Zope 2 is a single application
Are you sure you know Zope2 ?
--
Dieter
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Stephan Richter wrote at 2007-10-6 13:40 -0400:
> ...
>I personally feel quiet offended to see Zope 3 degraded to a set of
>components. Zope 3 in itself is also an application server; Zope 2, on the
>other hand, is an application.
Maybe, but then Zope 2 is an application with variants that are
n
Andreas Jung wrote:
We don't need to start a discussion about the architecture.
Apparently we do as since we are talking about zope 3's development
forum. This is where discussions and decisions for zope 3 occur and I
don't want this necessarily combined and heavily influenced by zope 2
deve
On 10/6/07, Roger Ineichen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You are using 7 times the term "Zope2" and 9 times "Zope 3"
> and also "Plone 3.0" in this small text. Can you try to describe
> this without "2 or 3" in "Zope *"? I guess not, right?
Now you are being silly. :-) He was writing a text about h
On 10/6/07, David Pratt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with you Roger. I want things to stay as they are for the same
> reasons. I have great respect for Zope 2 developers however there there
> are two development paradigms at play that are fundamentally
> incompatible despite the inclusion o
--On 7. Oktober 2007 01:46:50 -0300 David Pratt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hi Andreas. Let me say I see the development paradigms as being the
following without prejudice to any application that depends upon zope 3.
Respectfully, no one is building walls. my contribution to the discussion
is
Hi Andreas. Let me say I see the development paradigms as being the
following without prejudice to any application that depends upon zope 3.
Respectfully, no one is building walls. my contribution to the
discussion is not about isolating folks but of the reality of the
software differences.
z
Andreas Jung wrote at 2007-10-6 17:20 +0200:
> ...
>The distinction between Zope 2 and Zope 3 must disappear. We must speak of
>"Zope". Everything else is counterproductive when it comes to promoting
>Zope. There is only one Zope developer community and most of us have a Zope
>2 and a Zope 3 hat
--On 6. Oktober 2007 13:40:46 -0400 Stephan Richter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Although you are a Zope component-only developer
you can not ignore the dependent applications and framework.
So you are saying I have to change Zope 3's story to cope with Zope 2's
identity crisis? Honestl
On Saturday 06 October 2007 13:14, Andreas Jung wrote:
> > You are using 7 times the term "Zope2" and 9 times "Zope 3"
> > and also "Plone 3.0" in this small text. Can you try to describe
> > this without "2 or 3" in "Zope *"? I guess not, right?
>
> s/Zope 2/Zope application server
> s/Zope 3/Zope
--On 6. Oktober 2007 18:24:45 +0200 Roger Ineichen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Andreas
What do you man by "two development paradigms"?
Please don't build a wall between Zope 2 and Zope 3
developers. Most "old-school" Zope 2 developers are doing
development also with Zope 3 components and
Hi Andreas
> What do you man by "two development paradigms"?
>
> Please don't build a wall between Zope 2 and Zope 3
> developers. Most "old-school" Zope 2 developers are doing
> development also with Zope 3 components and Zope 3
> techniques. Look at Plone 3.0 and its heavy usage of Zope 3
>
--On 6. Oktober 2007 12:03:06 -0300 David Pratt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I agree with you Roger. I want things to stay as they are for the same
reasons. I have great respect for Zope 2 developers however there there
are two development paradigms at play that are fundamentally incompatible
I agree with you Roger. I want things to stay as they are for the same
reasons. I have great respect for Zope 2 developers however there there
are two development paradigms at play that are fundamentally
incompatible despite the inclusion of component architecture in Zope 2.
Regards,
David
Ro
--On 6. Oktober 2007 08:14:10 -0400 Benji York <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
we want to get rid of the term "Zope 3" in the future
The confusion for people with the terms and Zope 2 and Zope 3 was
one of major topics of the last german Zope conference. And there
were also
Andreas Jung wrote:
we want to get rid of the term "Zope 3" in the future
That's news to me. Perhaps for some definition of "we".
--
Benji York
Senior Software Engineer
Zope Corporation
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail
--On 6. Oktober 2007 03:16:53 +0200 Roger Ineichen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Betreff: [Zope3-dev] I'd lobe to merge the zope3-dev and
zope-dev lists
Any objections?
This would basically involve retiring the zope3-dev list and moving
zope3 developers to the zope-dev list.
-1
Not that I'm
20 matches
Mail list logo
