On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 10:07 -0200, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
> This Zope 3 frontend might be released soon, even under ZPL if there's
> interest.
+1
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.o
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Let me focus the discussion: I think it's nearly always a bad idea for
anyone, newbie or expert, to put a template or script in ZODB. Do we
have any agreement on that point? I wish we did. I enjoy ZODB for many
purposes, but not for storing templates and scripts.
Sorr
> So my plea is: If we're going to have more than one way to do it,
> let's please not invent lots of special magical things that
> "just work" in one mode of development and have to be laboriously
> rewritten in the other mode of development. It makes the border
> between modes of working too ha
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 02:16:05AM -0700, Jeff Shell wrote:
> I think that Zope 2 suffered heavily from the "too many ways to do it"
> when it came to ways of doing development, and there were gulfs
> between each style. Each style had its plusses too. ZClasses certainly
> had an appreciative audie
Jeff Shell wrote:
I thought this uniformity of a development model was the Zope 3
message. Am I wrong?
Yes, you're wrong. To create the home page, web developers are directed
to put a page template in ZODB. This is completely different from what
you do. What should they do instead? I don'
On Feb 15, 2006, at 11:52 PM, Jeff Shell wrote:
A Zope that was basically zope.publisher, zope.component,
zope.interface, zope.schema, and tal/tales (and maybe 'transaction')
would be ideal.
+1
I guess this is all kindof rambling. I just don't see any benefit to
me. I'd rather see any effor
On 2/16/06, Shane Hathaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeff Shell wrote:
> > I agree that better integration with external data should be a
> > priority for Zope. But what does that mean? In theory, if something's
> > a Python object it should work with Zope 3 with relative ease... If
> > that's n
Jeff Shell wrote:
I agree that better integration with external data should be a
priority for Zope. But what does that mean? In theory, if something's
a Python object it should work with Zope 3 with relative ease... If
that's not the case, perhaps we need to look at how much work is
required to t
On 2/10/06, 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 first-class citize
Jeff Shell wrote:
Personally, I think that the ZODB is a terrific asset that has
achieved a greater level of usability in Zope 3. At least, it has for
us, now that we're no longer confused about whether the ZODB should
house our persistent objects, or if it should house our icons and
scripts and
On 2/10/06, Shane Hathaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chris Withers wrote:
> > I'd flip that, because I think you and Steve A would agree on one thing:
> > The use of an object database _should_ be a choice, not a requirement,
> > but it should also be the default ;-)
>
> Actually, I disagree--I
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Do you mean "_just_ an RDBMS if you so desire"? We don't want to force
people to use an ORM either.
I meant "whatever else anyone wants to use" ;-)
Flat files are everybody's land.
That doesn't mean they're a good idea...
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zo
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Yes, RDBMS would become a first-class citizen. New users would be able
to write some page templates and SQL scripts on the filesystem and have
them work with no extra effort.
Great, you've just re-invented LAMP, but without the years of testing to
make it stable :-/
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,
they
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 09 February 2006 13:40, Shane Hathaway wrote:
Any thoughts or gut reactions?
Gut reaction: Very cool.
As long as we can easily also have the traditional way I would love to see a
prototype in a branch.
Cool! I'll start thinking deeper about it, then.
> On Thursday 09 February 2006 13:40, Shane Hathaway wrote:
>> Any thoughts or gut reactions?
>
> Gut reaction: Very cool.
>
> As long as we can easily also have the traditional way I would love to see
> a
> prototype in a branch.
>
> Regards,
> Stephan
+1
I want the best of all worlds, ZODB, RDB
On Thursday 09 February 2006 13:40, Shane Hathaway wrote:
> Any thoughts or gut reactions?
Gut reaction: Very cool.
As long as we can easily also have the traditional way I would love to see a
prototype in a branch.
Regards,
Stephan
--
Stephan Richter
CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Phy
Wade Leftwich wrote:
Following the lead of Holger Froebe, I'm looking at using Sqlalchemy
with Z3 to get access to more SQL syntax than SqlObject currently
exposes. By the way, Holger wrote a terrific Z3 advocacy post the other
day: http://www.jrandolph.com/blog/?p=23#comment-324
That's some co
Shane Hathaway 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 first-class citizen. New users would be able
> 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.)
> Shane wrote:
> Yes, RDBMS would become a first-class citizen. New users would be able
> to writ
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 first-class citizen. New users would be able
to write some page templates and SQL sc
Shane Hathaway wrote:
> An idea just occurred to me. I think others have probably had similar
> ideas, but didn't express it in the right place or time.
>
> Part 1: Let's put an Apache-like web root (similar to
> /var/www/localhost/htdocs/) in Zope instance homes. It might be called
> "browser"
Chris Withers wrote:
I'd flip that, because I think you and Steve A would agree on one thing:
The use of an object database _should_ be a choice, not a requirement,
but it should also be the default ;-)
Actually, I disagree--I don't want an object database to be the default.
An OODBMS is goo
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
To serve content from the filesystem we use a custom Publication
object that returns a different root 'application' object and from
there we use custom IBrowserPublisher and ITraversable adapters that
lookup files on the filesystem and construct simple stub objects to
repre
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 09:43:30PM -0500, Gary Poster wrote:
| Come to think of it, maybe it would also be an interesting approach
| to a "baked web site" delivery system.
Indeed, that's an idea. In fact, this is just what we are doing here
at Enfold.
We have created 'Entransit' [1] which recei
Shane Hathaway wrote:
An idea just occurred to me. I think others have probably had similar
ideas, but didn't express it in the right place or time.
Part 1: Let's put an Apache-like web root (similar to
/var/www/localhost/htdocs/) in Zope instance homes. It might be called
"browser" or "www
FWIW, I'd be keen on seeing a bobolike Zope 3 derivation that
included none or very little of zope.app, but that allowed you to
configure an instance to publish a single arbitrary root object but
assumed nothing else. I think the "filesystem traverser" root object
could be one kind of root
Amos Latteier wrote:
* I agree with Roger this might make sense for small projects. However,
for the small projects that I work on I more often need dynamic but not
persistent stuff, rather than static file serving. So this proposal
would appeal more to me if one could "mount" non-persistent ob
Gary Poster wrote:
On Feb 9, 2006, at 9:25 PM, Shane Hathaway wrote:
Roger Ineichen wrote:
That's a very interesting idea.
It is a very neat idea. You asked for gut reactions, and I must admit
that I regard the ZODB as more attractive and more central to the Zope
story than some, so
I agree that this is an interesting idea. I have a couple thoughts.
* There's something appealing about a collection of files that describe
how URLs are mapped to databases, static files, etc. This could serve as
a sort of site map for developers.
* I agree with Roger this might make sense fo
On Feb 9, 2006, at 9:25 PM, Shane Hathaway wrote:
Roger Ineichen wrote:
That's a very interesting idea.
It is a very neat idea. You asked for gut reactions, and I must
admit that I regard the ZODB as more attractive and more central to
the Zope story than some, so my gut reaction is luk
Roger Ineichen wrote:
That's a very interesting idea.
Do you mean something like this:
instance
|
-- var/poll.fs
|
-- wwwroot
|
-- index.html (file system)
|
-- pollApplication.zodb (zope)
| (file with info that point/maps to ../../var/poll.
Hi Shane
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Shane Hathaway
> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 7:41 PM
> To: zope3-dev@zope.org
> Subject: [Zope3-dev] Zope 3 web root
>
> An idea just occurred to me. I think others have probably
33 matches
Mail list logo
