Ty Sarna wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Chris Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1. Too much jargon... by far... Lots of complicated words that are
> > meanlingless to the layman and don't help to convey the concepts. This
> Can you point out some examples of which ones you think are especially bad?
Just everything in general... ;-)
The Glossary Wiki I mentioned would help lots...
...also, can you send the list a copy of your recommended books in this
> Naming has been a struggle. It's hard to come up with descriptive names
> for these things. Part of the confusion is that some things have been
> renamed in an effort to make the meanings clearer in the long term. But
> short term, it's confusing and it seems like there are lots of new
> concepts, when in fact there are just several names for the same concept
> (Implementor -> Specialist, Rack-mountable -> DataSkin, etc).
I know, hence the glossary suggestion :-)
> I'll also
> admit that Rack-mountable was a clearer name, but it was no longer
> accurate. We tend to err on the side of a name that doesn't clearly
> describe something instead of a name that clearly describes something,
> but describes it *wrong* so that you think you understand something and
> really don't. ("Well, at least the name tells you that you don't know
> what it is!", as I've said :-)
Fair enough, but then they really need to be explained for us mortals...
> You mention in another post that you feel lots of unnecessary features
> have been added -- can you give some examples of which ones you feel are
Probably me just misreadign the new terms popping up all the time :-)
> There has been only one major feature added in ZPatterns
> 0.4.0, which is the ability to have Rack-mountable-like things that
> don't live in racks. This is important for PTK-like applications where
> you don't want to lump everything into one container, but would instead
> like to have it distributed between member's folders, for example. I
> think it was worth it.
So do I, I just didn't understand it ;-)
> The PlugIns stuff is indeed separate, and is not really a part of
> ZPatterns as much as it's stuff that we wrote to make ZPatterns and
> other Zope products easier to write.
Maybe split it into a seperate product then? It might make learning
ZPatterns easier since this area won't get dragged into it...
> You can pretty much ignore it if
> you won't be writing python products or working in ZPatterns internals.
I will on the first count, hence the interest. Squishdot PTK is looming
ever closer now...
> 0.3.0 is pretty stable, I think. 0.4.0 alphas have been buggy. But they
> *are* alphas, after all. You were warned :^)
Any idea on a beta or final release schedule?
> What, you want something that's *not* based on any theory, just random
> ideas? :^)
No, but maybe the percieved pretentiousness upsets some people?
> As someone who used Zope for quite a while before it was
> even called that, and spent much time banging my head against the wall,
> I'm guessing I have a pretty good idea of how you feel. I've gained a
> new sympathy for DC.
> and it's hard to find time right now to work on things in
> ZPatterns that don't directly affect our paid work. (Much the same
> situation DC is in a lot of the time, I suspect).
Maybe try and leverage the community liek DC too? How about a ZPatterns
> So, in summary, please bear with us.
...will do, keep up the great work, we may bitch now but will probably
aprpeciate it in the long run :-)
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -