On 3/1/06, Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem is that Zope 3 is already very confusing.
That may be, but it doesnät help, because the name is Zope3. If you
rename it, then you will only add to the confusion, becuase then there
will be Zope2, Zope3 and Z, and everybody will be
Hi All,
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 15:17, Jim Fulton wrote:
Log message for revision 65611:
Made implementation specifications picklable.
Yipee!
Does this help with implementing persistent schemas at all?
cheers,
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope
Hi;
Revision 65664
$ZOPE/src/zope/app/container/browser/adding.py
class Adding, method add, line 70
I am afraid:
chooser.checkName(name, container)
Must be:
chooser.checkName(name, content)
But I might miss something there as a noob.
Cheers,
Mohsen,
from
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 04:02, Chris Withers wrote:
Does this help with implementing persistent schemas at all?
Yes, maybe, Jim? It also helps me with the WebDev stuff.
Regards,
Stephan
--
Stephan Richter
CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student)
Web2k - Web Software
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
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 22:56, Terry Hancock wrote:
The problem is that Zope 3 is already very confusing. To
anyone who is not among the Zope cognoscenti, the project
is simply called Zope (though nobody knows what the
it is!). It then has two versions 2 =Stable and
3=Development.
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
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 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 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 that
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
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
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,
Stephan
--
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
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 - found a bunch of
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 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 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,
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 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 with
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 hint
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
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?
In the
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 09:31 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
Thinking about this some more, I propose we should go for
June and November this year, to give Christian and others more
time and then do May and November from there on.
This would be very appreciated!
+1
Christan
--
gocept gmbh co. kg
We've been through a lot lately. You know it, I know it. Zope has a
reputation. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad. This has affected
Zope 3, since Zope 3 is very much not Zope 2. But it's affecting
Zope 2 as well, as Jim has brought to our attention. Zope 3 is Mature.
Zope 3 sounds like Zope
Jeff Shell wrote:
- Zope 3 CA: The Zope Component Architecture. Core services. Would
include zope.publisher and most other current top level zope.* things.
Usable as a library, as a publisher for other environments, perhaps as a
simple standalone server. Easy to deploy against WSGI,
On Mar 1, 2006, at 7:42 PM, Jeff Shell wrote:
[...]
- Zope 3 CA: The Zope Component Architecture. Core services. Would
include zope.publisher and most other current top level zope.*
things.
Usable as a library, as a publisher for other environments,
perhaps as a
simple standalone
I think packaging efforts are really the key to being able to tell a
story like this. The efforts happen to be couched in a process of
converting z3 packages into eggs, but really the process of
identifying dependencies and eliminating the silly ones is the
valuable work here, and it
On 3/1/06, Shane Hathaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeff Shell wrote:
- Zope 3 CA: The Zope Component Architecture. Core services. Would
include zope.publisher and most other current top level zope.* things.
Usable as a library, as a publisher for other environments, perhaps as a
On Mar 1, 2006, at 11:02 PM, Jeff Shell wrote:
[...]
Django is killing us on automatic data (not system) administration
pages.
[...]
I didn't follow this, probably because I don't know Django. Do you
mean they excel in automatic data entry forms, a la Zope 3 edit forms/
formlib? As in
Chris McDonough wrote:
[...] the process of identifying
dependencies and eliminating the silly ones is the valuable work here,
and it seems to be getting done by embracing egg packaging, which is
really wonderful.
Such a gushing endorsement! Now I feel guilty for not having tried eggs
On Mar 1, 2006, at 11:31 PM, Shane Hathaway wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
[...] the process of identifying
dependencies and eliminating the silly ones is the valuable work
here, and it seems to be getting done by embracing egg packaging,
which is really wonderful.
Such a gushing
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 21:43:10 -0500
Chris McDonough [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think packaging efforts are really the key to being able
to tell a story like this. The efforts happen to be
couched in a process of converting z3 packages into
eggs, but really the process of identifying
On 3/1/06, Gary Poster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 1, 2006, at 11:02 PM, Jeff Shell wrote:
[...]
Django is killing us on automatic data (not system) administration
pages.
[...]
I didn't follow this, probably because I don't know Django. Do you
mean they excel in automatic data
On 3/1/06, Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 21:43:10 -0500
Chris McDonough [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From a marketing or user convenience perspective, labels
like the ones proposed remain useful, however. Personally,
I think they're fine. I'm not sure I wouldn't ditch
37 matches
Mail list logo
