Re: [Zope3-Users] More fun with WSGI/zope.paste
Shane Hathaway wrote: Benji York wrote: Gary Poster wrote: z has also been proposed. :-) That strikes me as a good replacement for z3c. What about zf, for Zope Foundation? As I said earlier, that sounds good for things that have been given to the foundation, but non-foundation code needs another name space (IMO). -- Benji York Senior Software Engineer Zope Corporation ___ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
Re: [Zope3-Users] More fun with WSGI/zope.paste
[Re: zf as a namespace package] On 5/12/06, Benji York [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I said earlier, that sounds good for things that have been given to the foundation, but non-foundation code needs another name space (IMO). Aside from legacy, why would any code being committed to the ZF repository not be ZF code? I maintain that checking non-ZF code to a ZF repository would be a mistake. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr.fdrake at gmail.com Education is hanging around until you've caught on. -- Robert Frost ___ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
Re: [Zope3-Users] More fun with WSGI/zope.paste
Gary Poster wrote: Checking in the code is an assertion of provenance/license: for instance, I wouldn't have known about the Plone code, which is potentially a problem because of GPL vs. ZPL (see below). Hold-off on checking-in jsmin. The original author of the packer has not decided whether allow us a BSD-ish license or ZPL. Wanna get commit privileges? :-) It's the easiest way for you to assert the code's status. Can't at the moment. My note to Benji explains. Maybe after I see the new contributor agreement... - putting them in a namespace? Probably a good idea. If it was only one... well, but I do seem to have gotten prolific. :) :-) Go for it (on whichever namespace gets decided). These three projects, I feel a need to reiterate, need zope.paste and Paste.Deploy (or a similar stack), to use with zope3, so deprecating zc.resourcelibrary may not be a good idea until more folks are on-board with the wsgi filters idea. I think the project is on board with wsgi. paste is maybe not as mainstream in the Zope world yet, so yes, maybe we need to let that settle out. If there are no issues with the paste-based version, though, I'd like zc to use it. No further issues. There is some code from Python Cookbook (Python License, presumably, and presumably acceptable) but the rest is substantially mine. gzipper and jsmin really have no particular ties to zope at all, except that I used Zope3 for developing them, and they probably work OK in Zope3 as a consequence. (PS. er, actually, the packer in jsmin came from Plone.) eek! GPL can't go in zope.org. Do you know what the license is to that particular component? Of course, I went eek! first when Balazs wanted to include the packer in jsonserver / concatresource when it was GPL. This will be handled in a most appropriate and satisfactory manner. With the caveats above, sounds great. :-) Good. You will find that my code has the very liberal Academic Free License referenced. If you need different, I will be happy to relicense. -Jim Washington ___ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
Re: [Zope3-Users] More fun with WSGI/zope.paste
On May 7, 2006, at 4:47 PM, Jim Washington wrote: Following along from Gary's idea that zc.resourcelibrary could be done as WSGI middeware, I am now previewing headincludes, a wsgi middleware filter with an alternative implementation of zc.resourcelibrary. It usurps a lot of zc.resourcelibrary configuration for compatibility, so they cannot be used at the same time. But reconfiguring is just a matter of a few files. For more information go to http://zif.hill-street.net/headincludes . The readme is at http://zif.hill-street.net/headincludes/README.txt . development status: works for me :-) awesome! What do you think about some or all of the following: - moving development of all three of these to zope.org svn? - putting them in a namespace? - merging zc.resourcelibrary and headincludes? - the possibility that we might want to include things not only in the head later (some old JS code wanted to be at the end, for instance) and so resourcelibrary, or at least something less specific than headincludes, might be a better name? More concretely, I suggest three new projects in zope.org: z3c.resourcelibrary (deprecating zc.resourcelibrary) z3c.gzipper z3c.jsmin You could also choose zc--that could stand for zope community as much as zope corporation--but it might cause confusion. z has also been proposed. :-) The zope namespace means from the Zope project, not specifically for zope (see zope.interface, for instance) so there's ample precedent for general things going in a z* namespace... What do you think? Getting the code in a publicly-accessible repo, ideally svn.zope.org, is my primary desire--everything else is peripheral. (I don't have as much use personally for your JSON-server right now, btw, but maybe that would be good to put in the repo too?) Gary ___ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
Re: [Zope3-Users] More fun with WSGI/zope.paste
Gary Poster wrote: More concretely, I suggest three new projects in zope.org: z3c.resourcelibrary (deprecating zc.resourcelibrary) z3c.gzipper z3c.jsmin I understand that z3c is the community name space that Stephan intends for people to use, but is seems terribly ugly to me. Could we come up with a better name? Otherwise, if everyone else likes it/doesn't care, I can bite my tongue. :) You could also choose zc--that could stand for zope community as much as zope corporation--but it might cause confusion. Yeah, I think zc should continue to mean Zope Corporation. I would also like it if other major contributors choose their own name space. z has also been proposed. :-) That strikes me as a good replacement for z3c. -- Benji York Senior Software Engineer Zope Corporation ___ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
Re: [Zope3-Users] More fun with WSGI/zope.paste
Benji York wrote: Gary Poster wrote: z has also been proposed. :-) That strikes me as a good replacement for z3c. What about zf, for Zope Foundation? Shane ___ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
Re: [Zope3-Users] More fun with WSGI/zope.paste
Shane Hathaway wrote: Benji York wrote: Gary Poster wrote: z has also been proposed. :-) That strikes me as a good replacement for z3c. What about zf, for Zope Foundation? I was thinking more about code that doesn't belong to the Foundation, but that's a good choice for code that does. -- Benji York Senior Software Engineer Zope Corporation ___ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
Re: [Zope3-Users] More fun with WSGI/zope.paste
On May 8, 2006, at 4:41 PM, Benji York wrote: Shane Hathaway wrote: Benji York wrote: Gary Poster wrote: z has also been proposed. :-) That strikes me as a good replacement for z3c. What about zf, for Zope Foundation? I was thinking more about code that doesn't belong to the Foundation, but that's a good choice for code that does. Contributor now == Zope Foundation member soon. zf is fine by me too. Gary ___ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
Re: [Zope3-Users] More fun with WSGI/zope.paste
On 5/8/06, Benji York [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I must have been unclear. zf sounds great to me as a name space for code that's covered by the contributer agreement. z (or something else) as a default name space for non-foundation code that doesn't otherwise have a name space. I'm not sure what you mean by non-foundation code. Isn't the intent to move the entire repository to the foundation? It's all, in that scenario, foundation code. I'd suggest that code that won't be transferred to the foundation doesn't belong in the svn.zope.org repository at all. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr.fdrake at gmail.com Don't let schooling interfere with your education. -- Mark Twain ___ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
Re: [Zope3-Users] More fun with WSGI/zope.paste
Fred Drake wrote: On 5/8/06, Benji York [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I must have been unclear. zf sounds great to me as a name space for code that's covered by the contributer agreement. z (or something else) as a default name space for non-foundation code that doesn't otherwise have a name space. I'm not sure what you mean by non-foundation code. Isn't the intent to move the entire repository to the foundation? It's all, in that scenario, foundation code. No, I'm talking about people who have developed something and can't, won't, or just haven't signed a contributer agreement, but want to make the code open source and available. Instead of each and every one coming up with their own name space there could be a default, non-foundation name space for them to use. Jim (Washington)'s code is just such an example. In this specific case I'd prefer he put it in svn.zope.org, and if so should be in the zf name space. If, for some reason, he doesn't then the name space could be z (or some other nice name). I'd suggest that code that won't be transferred to the foundation doesn't belong in the svn.zope.org repository at all. Totally agreed. -- Benji York Senior Software Engineer Zope Corporation ___ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
Re: [Zope3-Users] More fun with WSGI/zope.paste
On May 8, 2006, at 5:15 PM, Jim Washington wrote: Oops. Forgot to cc the list. Gary Poster wrote: [...] What do you think about some or all of the following: - moving development of all three of these to zope.org svn? OK. I do not have commit privileges on zope.org svn. But you do, and I do not mind if you put these packages up there. Checking in the code is an assertion of provenance/license: for instance, I wouldn't have known about the Plone code, which is potentially a problem because of GPL vs. ZPL (see below). Wanna get commit privileges? :-) It's the easiest way for you to assert the code's status. - putting them in a namespace? Probably a good idea. If it was only one... well, but I do seem to have gotten prolific. :) :-) Go for it (on whichever namespace gets decided). These three projects, I feel a need to reiterate, need zope.paste and Paste.Deploy (or a similar stack), to use with zope3, so deprecating zc.resourcelibrary may not be a good idea until more folks are on-board with the wsgi filters idea. I think the project is on board with wsgi. paste is maybe not as mainstream in the Zope world yet, so yes, maybe we need to let that settle out. If there are no issues with the paste-based version, though, I'd like zc to use it. gzipper and jsmin really have no particular ties to zope at all, except that I used Zope3 for developing them, and they probably work OK in Zope3 as a consequence. (PS. er, actually, the packer in jsmin came from Plone.) eek! GPL can't go in zope.org. Do you know what the license is to that particular component? You could also choose zc--that could stand for zope community as much as zope corporation--but it might cause confusion. z has also been proposed. :-) The zope namespace means from the Zope project, not specifically for zope (see zope.interface, for instance) so there's ample precedent for general things going in a z* namespace... What do you think? Getting the code in a publicly-accessible repo, ideally svn.zope.org, is my primary desire--everything else is peripheral. I agree. (I don't have as much use personally for your JSON-server right now, btw, but maybe that would be good to put in the repo too?) jsonserver is sitting happily in z3labs, where Balazs Ree and I are working (slowly) on a unified package for zope2 /five and zope3. It's a moving target, and we keep going off on interesting tangents. :) So, to recap, I have largely positive thoughts about your suggestions. And please feel free to put whichever of these packages you feel are appropriate wherever you wish on svn.zope.org. How's that for flexibility? With the caveats above, sounds great. :-) Gary ___ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
Re: [Zope3-Users] More fun with WSGI/zope.paste
On May 8, 2006, at 5:39 PM, Benji York wrote: Jim Washington wrote: OK. I do not have commit privileges on zope.org svn. But you do, and I do not mind if you put these packages up there. AFAIK, you'd still have to sign a contributor agreement. (PS. er, actually, the packer in jsmin came from Plone.) Is the packer code GPL? Heh. That's pretty much what I said. Benji wants to get me a shirt that says -vvv :-) Gary ___ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
