I'll make some small comments below, but I want to make a big
comment to start. Zope 2 and Plone are both examples of
extensible applications. In my note, I was trying to make the
point that I think such applications have value. I'd like to
see them exist. I'd like to see them done well. I
Reinoud van Leeuwen wrote:
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 05:12:18PM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
Some thoughts on Zope 3, Zope 3 applications, and Zope 3 instances
[...]
I should note that there have been a number of sucessful Zope 3
applications that were not the OFS. In fact, some of the earliest
Chris Withers wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
None of this should be taken as any sort of edict. I'm also not
trying to name anything. While I'd love to spur discussion, I hope not
to start any arguments. :)
On that front, I'll note that I've seen 3 patterns emerge in the
projects I work on:
1.
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 10:29:03AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
Reinoud van Leeuwen wrote:
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 05:12:18PM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
Some thoughts on Zope 3, Zope 3 applications, and Zope 3 instances
[...]
I should note that there have been a number of sucessful Zope 3
Martin Aspeli wrote:
...
Anyway - I hope these perspectives are useful. I'm certainly not disagreeing
with what you're saying or with the direction you're pointing out. I think
we just need be mindful that there were some good things about the past
approaches as well as problems (not that
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 06:07:08PM +0100, Brian Sutherland wrote:
That's interesting. As a developer, I like things to be
self contained. Most Unix system administrators I know want me
to follow standard Unix file-system layour conventions (e.g.
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/).
Wearing
Jim Fulton wrote:
Some thoughts on Zope 3, Zope 3 applications, and Zope 3 instances
I found this very interesting. As more of an indirect consumer to Zope 3
(but user of Zope 3 via Five and developer of Plone on Zope 2), here are
some of my own thoughts.
In the Zope2/CMF/Plone world, we
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 05:12:18PM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
Some thoughts on Zope 3, Zope 3 applications, and Zope 3 instances
[...]
I should note that there have been a number of sucessful Zope 3
applications that were not the OFS. In fact, some of the earliest
production Zope 3
On Wednesday 03 January 2007 17:12, Jim Fulton wrote:
In summary, I'm seeing Zope 3 applications as separate entities from
the OFS. The OFS application isn't something we'll use directlty.
Instances will be instances of our applications, not of Zope 3.
I should note that there have been
I'll be happy to see the complete eggification - the sooner the better.
The only issue I see as a possible negative is that it may be hard for
folks to visualize z3's potential. AFAIK the framework approach has not
negatively impacted Twisted that has some documentation and a book but
no core
Jim Fulton wrote:
None of this should be taken as any sort of edict. I'm also not trying
to name anything. While I'd love to spur discussion, I hope not to start
any arguments. :)
On that front, I'll note that I've seen 3 patterns emerge in the
projects I work on:
1. Development: lots of
Some thoughts on Zope 3, Zope 3 applications, and Zope 3 instances
I'd like to share some thoughts about what Zope 3 is (to me), what a
Zope 3 application is, and what a Zope 3 instance is, or should be.
I think this should influence our thinking about Zope 3 releases and
tools we create,
12 matches
Mail list logo
