Daniel Nouri wrote:
Martin Aspeli writes:
Yuppie writes:
but in general that's the way to go. Since z3c.form became the
standard in the Zope 3 world I'd like to see Zope 2 and CMF moving
in the same direction. Unfortunately using plone.z3cform is no
option for CMF because it has a different license and
repository. *If* Plone wants to donate that code to the Zope
Foundation or someone writes something similar (maybe five.z3cform),
I'd be happy to help with CMF integration.
Bah, I hate these discussions. I'm sure Daniel Nouri would be happy to
relicense. Re-invention for the sake of a license is just too dumb.
I'd prefer to keep the name to avoid breaking existing packages, though.
Another option is to factor out a few things to a five.z3cform and
have plone.z3cform import from it as appropriate.
I just relicensed and moved plone.z3cform to the Zope repository:
http://svn.zope.org/plone.z3cform/trunk/
Yay!
Despite the "plone" namespace, it works fine in CMF and pure Zope 2.
A namespace is just a name :).
*Some* of the functionality (modules) is Plone or CMF specific. The
default configure.zcml aims to be usable without Plone or CMF.
There's a buildout.cfg in there that pulls Plone. I'd like to replace
it with a Zope2-only one (and maybe move the existing buildout to
another location).
+100
The tests work without Plone.
Awesome.
By the way, I've collected a few conventions about maintaining software
in svn.zope.org:
http://svn.zope.org/*checkout*/Sandbox/philikon/foundation/maintaining-software.txt
http://svn.zope.org/*checkout*/Sandbox/philikon/foundation/releasing-software.txt
It would be nice if everything in svn.zope.org would adhere to these
conventions. I'm just mentioning this since there may be some
differences to Plone's conventions.
_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - [email protected]
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf
See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
