On Mar 6, 2006, at 9:21 PM, Jake wrote:
I think it is a huge mistake to lose Zope branding. After years of
building up momentum behind a project, to head off into some
strange developer code speak is just going to lose people who are
not intimately involved.
The world, after many years,
On Mar 7, 2006, at 6:56 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
On Mar 6, 2006, at 9:21 PM, Jake wrote:
I think it is a huge mistake to lose Zope branding. After years of
building up momentum behind a project, to head off into some
strange developer code speak is just going to lose people who are
not
On Feb 28, 2006, at 7:39 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
So, my proposal would be to tone down the vision to what we have
already: a co-evolving Zope 3 and Zope 2, with Zope 2 following and
Zope 3 leading (or Zope 2 driving Zope 3 forward, however you want
to see it). No renaming necessary. No
+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
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 06:51, Martijn Faassen wrote:
snip great discussion
I think we can just carry on this message.
I could not agree more. I have nothing to add at this point.
Regards,
Stephan
--
Stephan Richter
CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student)
Web2k - Web
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 00:33, Jeff Shell wrote:
All of these big features are neat and well. But I want less. I don't
know how to use less. There are dependencies on zope.app creeping into
packages allowed in zope.*, and I understand that more of that is
likely to happen in the future. And
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 07:39, Martijn Faassen wrote:
I know I sound conservative here, but I'm actually happy with the way
things are working now. Let's not fix what isn't broken. We can make
incremental steps to making it better, and I'm glad people are starting
to understand the ideas
Ursprüngliche Nachricht
am: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:57:46 -0500
von: Stephan Richter : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I just want to be ensured that I do not have to deal with additional
overhead
(i.e. learn Zope 2 again), but can develop Zope 3 applications as I like it.
Not new to Python but new to
Jeff Shell wrote:
Perhaps it's not the greatest name, but I've become enamored with *lib
names like 'formlib'.
'zopelib'
Hmmm. Not the prettiest thing. But it does say Zope Library. If that
becomes the *core* of the mythical Zope 5, awesome.
This sounds familiar. :-)
Jim Fulton wrote:
I'd like to get feedback on two possible visions for the future of
Zope 2 and Zope 3.
1) Our current vision (AFAIK) is that Zope 3 will eventually
replace Zope 2
[snip]
2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
[snip]
Thoughts?
My initial reaction is:
Hey,
I have another comment about Zope 5, sparked by something Jeff Shell wrote.
Currently we have a clear path to evolution. Zope 3 evolves at its pace,
and Zope 2 evolves mostly by catching up with Zope 3, replacing more and
more bits with Zope 3 bits, which often takes considerable
Martijn Faassen wrote:
So, my proposal would be to tone down the vision to what we have
already: a co-evolving Zope 3 and Zope 2, with Zope 2 following and Zope
3 leading (or Zope 2 driving Zope 3 forward, however you want to see
it). No renaming necessary. No change of course necessary. Zope
Gary Poster wrote:
[snip]
On Feb 28, 2006, at 10:06 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
I think focusing on one app server and a dedicated set of libraries
would be a good alternative to two concurring app servers.
...if the single app server is based on acquisition, __bobo_traverse__
and
On 2/28/06, Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
[snip]
On Feb 28, 2006, at 10:06 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
I think focusing on one app server and a dedicated set of libraries
would be a good alternative to two concurring app servers.
...if the
I'd like to get feedback on two possible visions for the future of
Zope 2 and Zope 3.
1) Our current vision (AFAIK) is that Zope 3 will eventually
replace Zope 2
- There will be lots of overlap between the Zope 2 and Zope 3
lifetimes. (Zope 2 might be supported more or less
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 10:37 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
I'd like to get feedback on two possible visions for the future of
Zope 2 and Zope 3.
1) Our current vision (AFAIK) is that Zope 3 will eventually
replace Zope 2
- There will be lots of overlap between the Zope 2 and Zope 3
My 2 EuroCents:
Vision 1 is, I think what is happening at the moment for pragamatic and
practical reasons. Drawbacks of this is that we loose the ZopeX3
(Zope3X?) vision of cutting loose from old burdens and take off to new
horizons.
Vision 2, on the other hand (at least to me in my
On Monday 27 February 2006 10:37, Jim Fulton wrote:
1) Our current vision (AFAIK) is that Zope 3 will eventually
replace Zope 2
2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
As you probably know already, I am -1 on the second proposal, since it will
disallow us to finally get rid
--On 27. Februar 2006 21:57:46 -0500 Stephan Richter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 27 February 2006 10:37, Jim Fulton wrote:
1) Our current vision (AFAIK) is that Zope 3 will eventually
replace Zope 2
2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
As you probably know
On Feb 27, 2006, at 10:37 AM, Jim Fulton wrote:
2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
Of the two, this seems more believable. It also may be the best we
can do. However, I still don't like it. :-)
- Zope 5 will be the application server generally known as
Zope. It
On 2/27/06, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to get feedback on two possible visions for the future of
Zope 2 and Zope 3.
1) Our current vision (AFAIK) is that Zope 3 will eventually
replace Zope 2
- There will be lots of overlap between the Zope 2 and Zope 3
21 matches
Mail list logo
