Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-03-06 Thread Martijn Faassen
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: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-03-05 Thread Jean-Marc Orliaguet
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'?.

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-03-05 Thread Jim Fulton
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

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-03-05 Thread Jean-Marc Orliaguet
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

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-03-05 Thread Jim Fulton
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

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-03-04 Thread Rob Jeschofnik
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

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-03-03 Thread Martijn Faassen
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*

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-03-03 Thread Martijn Faassen
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

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions?

2006-03-02 Thread Stephan Richter
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) Web2k -

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions?

2006-03-02 Thread Benji York
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?

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions?

2006-03-02 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
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? If we want

Re: webdav locking (was Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions)

2006-03-02 Thread Michael Kerrin
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 like to

Re: webdav locking (was Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions)

2006-03-02 Thread Gary Poster
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

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-03-01 Thread Stephan Richter
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

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-03-01 Thread Stephan Richter
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

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-03-01 Thread Sidnei da Silva
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

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-03-01 Thread Stephan Richter
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

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-03-01 Thread Sidnei da Silva
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

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-03-01 Thread Stephan Richter
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

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-03-01 Thread Michael Kerrin
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

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-03-01 Thread Stephan Richter
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 --

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-03-01 Thread Jim Fulton
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.

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-03-01 Thread Jim Fulton
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

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-03-01 Thread Michael Kerrin
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

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-03-01 Thread Lennart Regebro
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

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-03-01 Thread Sidnei da Silva
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

webdav locking (was Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions)

2006-03-01 Thread Gary Poster
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,

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-03-01 Thread Jim Fulton
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

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-03-01 Thread Stephan Richter
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

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-03-01 Thread Michael Kerrin
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

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-03-01 Thread Jim Fulton
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

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-03-01 Thread Lennart Regebro
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

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-03-01 Thread Stephan Richter
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

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-02-28 Thread Encolpe Degoute
-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 |

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-02-28 Thread Dmitry Vasiliev
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

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-02-28 Thread Alec Mitchell
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 generally known as

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-02-28 Thread Jim Fulton
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 that

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-02-28 Thread Martijn Faassen
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

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-02-28 Thread Lennart Regebro
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 there

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-02-28 Thread Jim Fulton
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 from Zope

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-02-28 Thread Martijn Faassen
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

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-02-28 Thread Gary Poster
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

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-dev] Two visions

2006-02-27 Thread Stephan Richter
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