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 2/11/06, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are two types of deprecation, though - one is deprecating specific
packages or methods or classes. Another is deprecating fundamental
patterns and ways of working. Am I supposed to use ZCML for this or
Python? Well, a while ago, it was
On Feb 11, 2006, at 9:24 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
I'm told that the ZODB is the de-facto way of storing content.
Maybe soon the default may be a filesystem. Mmm...
My feelings are that there should be a classic Zope 3 release which
is exactly what exists now (it should make the assumption
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Now I'm
told that the ZODB is the de-facto way of storing content. Maybe soon
the default may be a filesystem. Mmm...
Whatever we do with the filesystem, it's not going to be as ambitious as
Ape. Ape makes the filesystem appear as an object database, but that
turns
I really like this idea. I spend most of my time developing applications
with Plone, and am just starting to use zope 3. Most of what I spend my
time on is site customisation and one off development. But I've never
really found a nice way to layout my applications, Product (or more
standard
Hi!
I've being working on integrating Balazs Ree's CTAL interpreter recently
(added tests, fixes, etc.). CTAL is the equivalent of TAL but for
javascript. For the record MochiKit also has something equivalent called
MochiTAL that supports tal:content and tal:repeat.
Anyway, CTAL implements
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 into a special
Products package. This was very convenient in
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
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Zope is a feast with many kinds of food. When people come to the
feast, most are not willing to try everything at once, particularly
the entrees from the land of OODBMS. First let them have some
familiar foods. When they find out how finely prepared the food is,
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) to be
included, so it is clear that
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Any thoughts or gut reactions?
For the record, my gut reaction: Very interesting idea!
I think there are two parts to the rationale here:
1) Making it easy to quickly prototype an app on the filesystem using
methods that people are familiar with. You mention that above.
Chris McDonough wrote:
I'm told that the ZODB is the de-facto way of storing content. Maybe
soon the default may be a filesystem. Mmm...
My feelings are that there should be a classic Zope 3 release which
is exactly what exists now (it should make the assumption that ZODB is
present
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 into a special
Products package. This was
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Just to drop a note that I think a discussion about a potential brand
name for Zope 3 is far less important than actually fixing our website
and presenting Zope 3 (and Zope 2 for that matter) in a better way.
Perhaps we can better redirect our energies to that than to
Martijn Faassen wrote:
With a package in the 'zope' namespace, what am I supposed to do when I
install it? Symlink it into lib/python of my Zope 3 software home?
For the record: no.
You can simply have multiple directories for a namespace package when
you use 'pkgutil'. See
On Feb 11, 2006, at 11:48 PM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
[...]
Indeed. Plus, I strongly feel that pushing Zope 3 more than Zope 2 or
viceversa isn't helping. We need to push Zope-the-technology and
Zope-the-community. Branding Zope 3 and making it look like something
separate now when
Gary Poster wrote:
On Feb 11, 2006, at 11:48 PM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
[...]
Indeed. Plus, I strongly feel that pushing Zope 3 more than Zope 2 or
viceversa isn't helping. We need to push Zope-the-technology and
Zope-the-community. Branding Zope 3 and making it look like something
18 matches
Mail list logo