Hi,

I saw a new architectur of Zope 3, In Zope 3 integrate concept of adapter. I
think that is good idea, but I think that concept is false beacause in
python language don't support the class "interface", is necessary for
respect the Design Pattern. Do you think who would be better to do to evolve
language python for support the class "interface" also java?

best regards,
Fabrice Monaco

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: jeudi 24 novembre 2005 11:21
To: zope3-dev@zope.org
Subject: Zope3-dev Digest, Vol 28, Issue 41


Send Zope3-dev mailing list submissions to
        zope3-dev@zope.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-dev
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        [EMAIL PROTECTED]

You can reach the person managing the list at
        [EMAIL PROTECTED]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Zope3-dev digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. RE: RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source
      coderepository (Roger Ineichen)
   2. Re: Retaining ease of customisation (Jean-Marc Orliaguet)
   3. RE: RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source
      coderepository (Roger Ineichen)
   4. RE: RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source
      coderepository (Philipp von Weitershausen)
   5. Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3
      in        the     source code repository (Philipp von Weitershausen)
   6. RE: RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source
      coderepository (Philipp von Weitershausen)
   7. RE: RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the
      sourcecoderepository (Roger Ineichen)
   8. Re: RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code
      repository (Martijn Faassen)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:57:42 +0100
From: "Roger Ineichen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source
        coderepository
To: "'Philipp von Weitershausen'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
        <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: 'Dominik Huber' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, zope3-dev@zope.org,
        zope-dev@zope.org
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"

Hi Philipp

[...]
> Stephan Richter wrote:
> > I totally disagree. I, as a Zope 3 developer, have to learn
> Zope 2 and Five.
>
> What makes you think so? I, for one, have not the slightest
> clue of how zope.wfmc works.
> Still I'm able to contribute to Zope 3, am I not? If I
> refactor something, I might even
> have to touch zope.wfmc, but for the most part this could be
> very superficial.

That's not true. E.g. if you register interfaces with bad
docstrings, you will break the zope.app.apidoc package functional
tests or other wrong registrations will fail in broken links etc.

I think it's not that easy and functional tests will become a
hard part to maintain in the future if we mix both framework.

> And if
> not, I have some trusty community members who can help me on a branch.

That's excatly what we don't whant. We are not able to develope
and ask others for fixes. This whon't work.

Btw, what's next.
Do we have to merge CMF, Plone and CPS also into the core
only because other whon't be able to develop with otherwise.

Common, if somebody is not able to install Zope3, Zope2 and Five,
I dont' think he will be able to help. I'm really afraid about the
idea if a merge will be the part where developer bring to the Zope3
core development.

Btw, I can't here reasons like that. Every half year there is another
reason what we should do for Zope2 developer so that they will
contribute more. I think you don't speak for all of them and belive that
a good skilled developer is able to get ver easy into the Zope3 development.

Do you really think it's easier for Zope2 developer to get into Zope3
only because the code lives in the same repsoitory. You draw the
picture a little bit to easy. I think if somebody will become a Zope3
developer he has to learn the totly new framework first. And not only
download the code.

Regards
Roger Ineichen


> It's been this way for years now, there's no compelling
> reason why it should change.
>
> Philipp
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
> _______________________________________________
> Zope3-dev mailing list
> Zope3-dev@zope.org
> Unsub:
> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/dev%40projekt01.ch
>
>



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:48:43 +0100
From: Jean-Marc Orliaguet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Zope3-dev] Retaining ease of customisation
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
        zope3-dev@zope.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed

Stephan Richter wrote:

>On Wednesday 23 November 2005 16:41, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>
>
>>I think there needs to be a solution for making quick, preferably TTW
>>customisation of UI templates. As Tres pointed out, this shouldn't add a
>>performance overhead and lead to maintenance woes for those who know what
>>they're doing. Ideally, the site admin should be able to switch this off.
>>Or even, the view creator should have to turn it on (e.g. by using a ZCML
>>directive that makes a template TTW customisable. Or something). I know
>>this strays away from best practice, that people will slap in crazy
>>python: statements in TAL etc. Having a way of dumping this stuff to
>>"real" views would be good, even necessary. But I think ignoring these
>>users because the approach that's most accessible to them doesn't fit with
>>  the purity of our framework will seem to them elitist, and it'll
probably
>>drive more people to ruby-on-rails, who sell themselves on how easy it is
>>to get started.
>>
>>
>
>You should have a look at CPSSkins for Zope 3 (developed by the Z3ECM
>project).
>
>Regards,
>Stephan
>
>

Hi Martin, Stefan!

There's a lot of work going on just to solve these issues (TTW /
filesystem, customization, creating settings, exporting resources to the
filesystem, ..), but on an application level and not in the way you
think. What is made customizable is not an entire template, but only the
resources used by the "template". Also the page composition is done
entirely TTW. So the need for a template to create an manage entire
sites disappears.

see for instance:
"Unified model for managing application resources"
http://www.z3lab.org/sections/blogs/jean-marc-orliaguet/2005_11_10_unified-m
odel-for

The separation of concerns (the site manager manages filesystem and TTW
resources, page designer manages pages, content  author manages content
, ...):
http://www.z3lab.org/sections/front-page/design-features/editing-screens/

Using ZPT pages to create portlets through-the-web
http://www.z3lab.org/sections/front-page/design-features/custom-portlet/

my impression is that if you want TTW editing you'll have to do it on an
application level using what's available in the framework (utilities,
ZPT, ...) Zope3 allows you to do this already and in a much cleaner way
than with zope2..

Regards
/JM


------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:14:55 +0100
From: "Roger Ineichen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source
        coderepository
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <zope3-dev@zope.org>
Cc: 'Philipp von Weitershausen' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
        zope-dev@zope.org
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"

Hi Zope3 developers

[...]
> On Thursday 24 November 2005 00:41, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> > At least no one is expecting to make such big changes by
> yourself. Being
> > stubborn and refusing to do further contributions, be they
> large or small,
> > isn't going to get us anywhere. The people who are so far
> backing up this
> > proposal have nothing but support to offer and you know that.
>
> I am as stubborn refusing this proposal as you are pushing
> it. Right now there
> are more -1 votes than +1 votes. Maybe it is time retract the
> proposal?
> Furthermore, I have yet to see contributions for Zope 3 from
> people using
> Five. We are not even getting bug reports.

Btw, do we really count developer where are voting but never
contributed to the z3 trunk? I think normaly yes. But this is a
proposal where I think should be up to the Zope3 developer
to decide.

Again, the base idea isn't that bad at all. But since no Zope3
develper will support it, it will be a bad idea to force it.

Regards
Roger Ineichen

> Regards,
> Stephan
> --
> Stephan Richter
> CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student)
> Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training
> _______________________________________________
> Zope3-dev mailing list
> Zope3-dev@zope.org
> Unsub:
> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/dev%40projekt01.ch
>
>



------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:15:59 +0100
From: Philipp von Weitershausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source
        coderepository
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: 'Dominik Huber' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, zope3-dev@zope.org,
        [EMAIL PROTECTED], zope-dev@zope.org
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Roger Ineichen wrote:
> > What makes you think so? I, for one, have not the slightest
> > clue of how zope.wfmc works.
> > Still I'm able to contribute to Zope 3, am I not? If I
> > refactor something, I might even
> > have to touch zope.wfmc, but for the most part this could be
> > very superficial.
>
> That's not true. E.g. if you register interfaces with bad
> docstrings, you will break the zope.app.apidoc package functional
> tests or other wrong registrations will fail in broken links etc.

So keeping Zope 3 packages up to speed can also be hard. What's your point?
That keeping
Five or Zope 2 packages using Zope 3 code up to speed is a different quality
of hardness?
I don't think so.

> I think it's not that easy and functional tests will become a
> hard part to maintain in the future if we mix both framework.

Now, *that* you'll have to explain to me...

> > And if
> > not, I have some trusty community members who can help me on a branch.
>
> That's excatly what we don't whant. We are not able to develope
> and ask others for fixes. This whon't work.

It has worked in the past. Stephan and I used to do a lot together on
geddons. Just
recently Fred and I complemented each other on several things related to
zpkgutils. Let's
 not pretend we're not teamplayers because we usually are.

> Btw, what's next.
> Do we have to merge CMF, Plone and CPS also into the core
> only because other whon't be able to develop with otherwise.

You know that's not what I'm proposing. I'm not even going to go into this
point further.
My proposal is up for discussion, nothing more, nothing less.

> Common, if somebody is not able to install Zope3, Zope2 and Five,
> I dont' think he will be able to help. I'm really afraid about the
> idea if a merge will be the part where developer bring to the Zope3
> core development.

I'm afraid I don't see the reason for such fear. I see a few risks, as I've
laid them out
in the proposals, and I see lots of opportunities.

> Btw, I can't here reasons like that. Every half year there is another
> reason what we should do for Zope2 developer so that they will
> contribute more.

I might be mistaken, but I think this proposal is the first serious attempt,
ignoring the
two books out there *wink*.

> I think you don't speak for all of them and belive that
> a good skilled developer is able to get ver easy into the Zope3
development.

Tres, Jens, Martijn, Martin, Morton, and Chris -- all people with strong
Zope 2 background
-- have given me the opposite impression.

> Do you really think it's easier for Zope2 developer to get into Zope3
> only because the code lives in the same repsoitory.

Yes.

> You draw the picture a little bit to easy.

Perhaps.

> I think if somebody will become a Zope3
> developer he has to learn the totly new framework first. And not only
> download the code.

Take Chris McDonough's excellent post. He's *exactly* the kinda guy I want
to address. He
has TONS of experience of running actual serious sites with Zope 2 and he
sees several
points in Zope 3 that can be improved. Why haven't these points been at the
tip of his
fingers yet? Do you think he's unable to learn Zope 3?

Not everyone had the luxury of being an early Zope 3 adopter...

Philipp


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:20:16 +0100
From: Philipp von Weitershausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3
        in      the     source code repository
To: Chris McDonough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: zope-dev@zope.org, zope3-dev@zope.org
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Chris McDonough wrote:
> I really, really appreciate Phil taking the time to propose this no
> matter what happens.

Chris, I won't bother you with a detailed answer (esp. to some points that
were not quite
correct about Zope 3 not caring about backward compat). I just wanted to say
that I also
really, really appreciate your taking time to write this post. You're
exactly the kinda
guy my proposal is addressing: Lots of Zope 2 experience on dead serious
sites, lots of
ideas on how to improve certain things in Zope 3, but no or little
opportunity so far to
get your hands dirty.

Philipp




----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:32:31 +0100
From: Philipp von Weitershausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source
        coderepository
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: zope3-dev@zope.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
        zope-dev@zope.org
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Roger Ineichen wrote:
> Btw, do we really count developer where are voting but never
> contributed to the z3 trunk? I think normaly yes. But this is a
> proposal where I think should be up to the Zope3 developer
> to decide.

Uh, why only Zope3 developers? This affects the whole Zope community!

Really, I'm quite tired of trench wars like Zope 2 vs. Zope 3. Like Martijn
said, we need
to come together, not apart. I'm starting to get the feeling that some Zope
3 developers
rather see Zope 2 die than embrace some of its experience and community. May
I remember
everyone again that we once said we'd do something about the transition (we
even boldly
called it "backward compatability" back then, but even I thought that this
was quite too
unrealistic). So far, nobody from Zope 3 has done anything in that
direction, it's always
been left to the Zope 2 people. Don't take me wrong, I'm not accusing, it
naturally
developed that way. But now that Zope 2 people want to join efforts, the
Zope 3
developers close the gates under the excuse of saving their "early adoption"
investment?

> Again, the base idea isn't that bad at all. But since no Zope3
> develper will support it, it will be a bad idea to force it.

I'm a Zope 3 developer. Martijn is too. Don't jump to premature conclusions
:).

Philipp


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:41:30 +0100
From: "Roger Ineichen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the
        sourcecoderepository
To: "'Philipp von Weitershausen'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: zope-dev@zope.org, zope3-dev@zope.org,
        [EMAIL PROTECTED],      'Dominik Huber'
        <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"

Hi Philipp

> Roger Ineichen wrote:
> > > What makes you think so? I, for one, have not the slightest
> > > clue of how zope.wfmc works.
> > > Still I'm able to contribute to Zope 3, am I not? If I
> > > refactor something, I might even
> > > have to touch zope.wfmc, but for the most part this could be
> > > very superficial.
> >
> > That's not true. E.g. if you register interfaces with bad
> > docstrings, you will break the zope.app.apidoc package functional
> > tests or other wrong registrations will fail in broken links etc.
>
> So keeping Zope 3 packages up to speed can also be hard.
> What's your point? That keeping
> Five or Zope 2 packages using Zope 3 code up to speed is a
> different quality of hardness?
> I don't think so.
>
> > I think it's not that easy and functional tests will become a
> > hard part to maintain in the future if we mix both framework.
>
> Now, *that* you'll have to explain to me...

If I do a refactoring on existing Zope3 code I proable have to
support backward compatibility on other z3 packages for a clean
commit where all unit test will pass. If we merge the Zope2
code into one trunk, we have to take care on this unit tests as
well. Or we will see broken unit tests in the future.

> > > And if
> > > not, I have some trusty community members who can help me
> on a branch.
> >
> > That's excatly what we don't whant. We are not able to develope
> > and ask others for fixes. This whon't work.
>
> It has worked in the past. Stephan and I used to do a lot
> together on geddons. Just
> recently Fred and I complemented each other on several things
> related to zpkgutils. Let's
>  not pretend we're not teamplayers because we usually are.

So future development will become pure XP programming. On
Zope3 developer and one Zope2 developer for each commit ;-)

> > Btw, what's next.
> > Do we have to merge CMF, Plone and CPS also into the core
> > only because other whon't be able to develop with otherwise.
>
> You know that's not what I'm proposing. I'm not even going to
> go into this point further.
> My proposal is up for discussion, nothing more, nothing less.

I think you are proposing to mix two totaly different framework
into one big trunk and the benefit will be in getting "Products"
back from Zope2 developers.

We are not in that state right now. We have a lot to do before
we can take car on "Products". I thnink we have to do several
refactorings before we can do such a joint venture.

> > Common, if somebody is not able to install Zope3, Zope2 and Five,
> > I dont' think he will be able to help. I'm really afraid about the
> > idea if a merge will be the part where developer bring to the Zope3
> > core development.
>
> I'm afraid I don't see the reason for such fear. I see a few
> risks, as I've laid them out
> in the proposals, and I see lots of opportunities.
>
> > Btw, I can't here reasons like that. Every half year there
> is another
> > reason what we should do for Zope2 developer so that they will
> > contribute more.
>
> I might be mistaken, but I think this proposal is the first
> serious attempt, ignoring the
> two books out there *wink*.
>
> > I think you don't speak for all of them and belive that
> > a good skilled developer is able to get ver easy into the
> Zope3 development.
>
> Tres, Jens, Martijn, Martin, Morton, and Chris -- all people
> with strong Zope 2 background
> -- have given me the opposite impression.
>
> > Do you really think it's easier for Zope2 developer to get
> into Zope3
> > only because the code lives in the same repsoitory.
>
> Yes.
>
> > You draw the picture a little bit to easy.
>
> Perhaps.
>
> > I think if somebody will become a Zope3
> > developer he has to learn the totly new framework first.
> And not only
> > download the code.
>
> Take Chris McDonough's excellent post. He's *exactly* the
> kinda guy I want to address. He
> has TONS of experience of running actual serious sites with
> Zope 2 and he sees several
> points in Zope 3 that can be improved. Why haven't these
> points been at the tip of his
> fingers yet? Do you think he's unable to learn Zope 3?

No, we really need developer like Chris. But the organization
of a development trunk has nothing to do with that.

Regards
Roger Ineichen

> Not everyone had the luxury of being an early Zope 3 adopter...
>
> Philipp
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
> _______________________________________________
> Zope3-dev mailing list
> Zope3-dev@zope.org
> Unsub:
> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/dev%40projekt01.ch
>
>



------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:20:39 +0100
From: Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source
        code    repository
To: Julien Anguenot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Philipp von Weitershausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
        zope3-dev@zope.org,     zope-dev@zope.org
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Julien Anguenot wrote:
[snip]
> And what about the acceptance of Zope3 *outside* the Zope community ?
> Zope3 will look like more complicated and confusing doing a merge.

People building on Zope 3 will presumably mostly be working with a Zope
3 release, which will not include Zope 2. So, they cannot be confused by
Zope 2 in that way. But if they're to become Zope 3 core developers
they'll have to learn about this, yes.

> I'm
> more concerned about the acceptance of Zope3 outside the Zope community
> because Zope2 developers will have to move to Zope3 at a certain time.
> It's juste much more easier than for the first people.

[snip]
 > I still believe Zope2 developers will come on Zope3 pretty easily.

I don't think it is easy at all. While any competent Zope 2 developer
will be able to learn about Zope 3, there's also the question of
motivation and opportunity to do so. Only thanks to Five is the Plone
community making any move to Zope 3 at all, for instance. There's a
pretty huge barrier between Zope 2 and Zope 3 and only recently has it
been slowly coming down in the minds of Zope 2 developers.

While I don't doubt developers will be coming to Zope 3 from outside the
Zope community, I also think that by far the biggest amount of
developers will be coming from *within* the Zope community, and if we
want to gain more developers for Zope 3, *that* is the best place to
look. It's our community, let's take care of it.

 > The
 > challenge is people outside the Zope community and I'm more worried
 > about them.

Outside the Zope community Zope 3 doesn't have such a great image
indeed. It's either ignored, or it's actively rejected. There is a lot
of competition with other frameworks. Zope 3 is currently not doing
particularly well in this competition, something we need to fix, but
that's another topic for another thread. It doesn't change that inviting
in the Zope 2 developers is most effective thing we can do at present to
grow the Zope 3 community.

Regards,

Martijn


------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-dev


End of Zope3-dev Digest, Vol 28, Issue 41
*****************************************

_______________________________________________
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to