That is a good set of ideas. Zope 2 installs into Zope 3.
Jake
http://www.ZopeZone.com
"Zoping for the rest of us"
On Feb 27, 2006, at 10:00 PM, Stephan Richter wrote:
On Monday 27 February 2006 11:06, Lennart Regebro wrote:
I like the vision of Zope2 becoming a set of extra packages you
i
Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
I wasn't trying to define app server. I was describing the Zope app
server.
As long as you realize you do risk confusion even by saying 'Zope app
server'. To me, Zope 3 is an app server, so when you say 'the Zope app
server' will include its functionalities too.
Re
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 an
Jim Fulton wrote:
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
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 system
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'?"
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'?". I think what Jim is
atte
On Thu, 2006-02-03 at 16:49 +0100, Paul Everitt wrote:
> I think Geoff's core point could be met by keeping the word "Zope" for
> the app server. I think Geoff's deeper point was to rethink the word
> used for the CA, which actually doesn't want to be thought of us an app
> server.
+1
--
Roc
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 system, through-the-web scripti
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 and over that this was *not* g
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 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://
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?
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:
>>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 "
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
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
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 11:12, Jim Fulton wrote:
> What do you think the current roadmap is? I'm not sure we agree onwhat it
> is. That's a huge problem.
The current roadmap, as far as I understand it based on your comments and
feedback from the community, is as follows:
Primary objective
--
On 3/1/06, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lennart Regebro wrote:
> > Well, not neccesarily. Things change, and the plan for the future has
> > not always been the same. The important part is that we work in the
> > same direction.
>
> How is that possible if we don't communicate the vision
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 assert
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 asserts (and
( agree wit
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 15:22, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 03:13:29PM +, Michael Kerrin wrote:
> | so it doesn't get to the locking tests (which will fail) but this is good
> | thing to aim at :-)
>
> You can run it with '-k' (for 'keep going').
Cool - thanks for the hin
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
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 like to see zope.locking (http://svn.zope.org/zope.locking/)
used, rat
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 03:13:29PM +, Michael Kerrin wrote:
| so it doesn't get to the locking tests (which will fail) but this is good
| thing to aim at :-)
You can run it with '-k' (for 'keep going').
--
Sidnei da Silva
Enfold Systems, LLC.
http://enfoldsystems.com
___
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 the same. The important
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 14:52, Stephan Richter wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 March 2006 09:50, Michael Kerrin wrote:
> > > First hit:
> > > http://www.google.com/search?q=webdav+litmus+tests
> > >
> > > What you think about turning those into functional doctests?
> >
> > Never seen that before - foun
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 12:33, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Are you kidding?
No, I'm not kidding.
+1 on the entire post from me too. And I would really like to see the
questions he raised answered.
OK, done.
We just recovered from this BBB overpromise,
What are
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
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
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 09:50, Michael Kerrin wrote:
> > First hit:
> > http://www.google.com/search?q=webdav+litmus+tests
> >
> > What you think about turning those into functional doctests?
>
> Never seen that before - found a bunch of bugs with it too :-)
You ran it already?
Regards,
Stepha
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 14:32, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 09:29:05AM -0500, Stephan Richter wrote:
> | On Wednesday 01 March 2006 09:24, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
> | > | Except that Michael Kerrins recent WebDAV work will shaddow Zope 2's
> | > | support. If I understand his
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 09:32, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
> What you think about turning those into functional doctests?
Of course a very, very big +1. :-)
Though I woul split them up, so that we can only test features that we know we
have implemented.
Regards,
Stephan
--
Stephan Richter
CBU Ph
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 09:29:05AM -0500, Stephan Richter wrote:
| On Wednesday 01 March 2006 09:24, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
| > | Except that Michael Kerrins recent WebDAV work will shaddow Zope 2's
| > | support. If I understand his improved implementation correctly, then it
| > | is very, very co
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 09:24, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
> | Except that Michael Kerrins recent WebDAV work will shaddow Zope 2's
> | support. If I understand his improved implementation correctly, then it
> | is very, very cool!
>
> Did you run the litmus tests against it? :)
I don't know what th
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 09:12:08AM -0500, Stephan Richter wrote:
| On Tuesday 28 February 2006 11:00, Jim Fulton wrote:
| > Zope 2 is more mature than Zope 3 in a lot of areas. WebDAV
| > and process management are a couple of examples that occur to me
| > off the top of my head.
|
| Except that
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 12:33, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> > Are you kidding?
>
> No, I'm not kidding.
+1 on the entire post from me too. And I would really like to see the
questions he raised answered.
We just recovered from this BBB overpromise, now we want to make another one.
We also just
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 11:00, Jim Fulton wrote:
> Zope 2 is more mature than Zope 3 in a lot of areas. WebDAV
> and process management are a couple of examples that occur to me
> off the top of my head.
Except that Michael Kerrins recent WebDAV work will shaddow Zope 2's support.
If I under
On Feb 28, 2006, at 12:33 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Are you kidding?
No, I'm not kidding.
+1 to what Martijn said in this email (not quoting the whole thing to
save precious bandwith).
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zop
Jim Fulton wrote:
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 diffe
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
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.
I'd rather say it's called Zope 2.15 or something :).
Seriously, we are developing applicat
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 f
On 2/28/06, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Zope 2 is more mature than Zope 3 in a lot of areas. WebDAV
> and process management are a couple of examples that occur to me
> off the top of my head.
Ah, and here I got an answer to the question I just posted. :)
Much of Zope2 maturity is th
Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> 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.
I'd rather say it's called Zope 2.15 or something :).
Philipp
___
Zope3-dev ma
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 2.9?
Regards,
Martijn
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 17:06 +0100, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> OK, some initial, fuzzy comments:
>
...
> You are thinking about things like TTW development and such?
Among other things.
Zope 2 is more mature than Zope 3 in a lot of areas. WebDAV
and process management are a couple of examples th
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 00:22, Encolpe Degoute wrote:
> Lennart Regebro a écrit :
> | OK, some initial, fuzzy comments:
> |
> | On 2/27/06, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |>2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
> |>
> |> - Zope 5 will be the application server generall
Lennart Regebro wrote:
I like the vision of Zope2 becoming a set of extra packages you
install for Zope3, to get backwards compatibility. Maybe this is the
same as what you call Zope 5, maybe not.
+1
--
Dmitry Vasiliev (dima at hlabs.spb.ru)
http://hlabs.spb.ru
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lennart Regebro a écrit :
| OK, some initial, fuzzy comments:
|
| On 2/27/06, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|>2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
|>
|> - Zope 5 will be the application server generally known as Zope. It
|>
On Monday 27 February 2006 11:06, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> I like the vision of Zope2 becoming a set of extra packages you
> install for Zope3, to get backwards compatibility. Maybe this is the
> same as what you call Zope 5, maybe not.
That would sound good to me!!!
Regards,
Stephan
--
Stephan
OK, some initial, fuzzy comments:
On 2/27/06, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In this vision, Zope 3 would have to become a lot more like
>Zope 2, or we would lose features.
You are thinking about things like TTW development and such? Because I
see that as add-on products of differ
57 matches
Mail list logo
