Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at: http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository
I love this idea! But I think it's still a bit too early to pursue it. In the next release cycle, I want to, finally, revisit what Zope 3 itself should be, especially the idea of "core". A couple of years ago, in the Zope 3 community, we debated what should be in "the core" of Zope 3. At the time. I fealt that that such a debate would be too much of a distraction. Now (well, after the December release :), I think it's time to revisit what the core of Zope 3 is and how we manage the repository. There has been a trend to manage important components separately and link them in. I see this trend continuing. The advent of eggs and continuing maturation of zpkg and testing technology will accelerate this trend, IMO. I think that in the future, there may be a much smaller core Zope 3 project that represents the "object filing system" (zope.ofs? :). This core project may be a client of a collection of much smaller projects, such as zope.interface, zope.component. etc.. If that vision comes to pass, Zope 2 will no longer contain the Zope 3 core, but they will both share a large number of components which neither of them "contain". Obviously, this would radically change the nature of this debate. On the topic of leveraging Zope 2 developers for Zope 3, I'd first like to leverage more Zope 2 developers for Zope 2. :) I'd like to see people focussing more effort on the Zope 3 in Zope 2 work and narrow the gap between Zope 2 and Zope 3. I'm thrilled with the effort you and others have put in and am very hopeful that the Goldegg initiative will focus more effort here, as it already has. Some projects that I'd really like to see worked on soon: - Use a common publisher framework - Use a common security framework - Share common ZPT implementations I'd love to participate in some sprints on these. After these things are done, and after we've had a chance to revisit the Zope 3 software organization, would be a good time to revisit how the Zope application server efforts should be managed. I really want to reunite the Zope 2 and Zope 3 comunities. I'd be happy if, by the end of 2006 we could retire the Zope 3 lists and merge the discussions back into the main zope lists. Jim P.S. Wow, what a huge number of messages in a day. :) -- Jim Fulton mailto:jim@zope.com Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 06:17:02 -0800, Jim Fulton <jim@zope.com> wrote:
Some projects that I'd really like to see worked on soon:
- Use a common publisher framework
- Use a common security framework
- Share common ZPT implementations
Can I add "use a common datetime implementation"? ;)
I really want to reunite the Zope 2 and Zope 3 comunities. I'd be happy if, by the end of 2006 we could retire the Zope 3 lists and merge the discussions back into the main zope lists.
Thanks a lot for your clarification, Jim - and on behalf of the Plone community, thanks for making things easier to plan around. If we know that such a transition is coming, we can plan for it. Reuniting the two efforts is critical for the survival of everyone involved in the Zope 2 and Zope 3 worlds.
P.S. Wow, what a huge number of messages in a day. :)
P.S. Try plone-users. Bring your waders. ;) -- _____________________________________________________________________ Alexander Limi · Chief Architect · Plone Solutions · Norway Consulting · Training · Development · http://www.plonesolutions.com _____________________________________________________________________ Plone Co-Founder · http://plone.org · Connecting Content Plone Foundation · http://plone.org/foundation · Protecting Plone
Alexander Limi wrote:
Can I add "use a common datetime implementation"? ;)
Philipp is already working on this :-) (and I'm keen to help out too, if there's a sane way for me to do so...) cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
Jim Fulton wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at: http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository
I love this idea!
Ok.
But I think it's still a bit too early to pursue it.
Perhaps so. Other people have given me that impression too, so there might be some truth in it.
In the next release cycle, I want to, finally, revisit what Zope 3 itself should be, especially the idea of "core". A couple of years ago, in the Zope 3 community, we debated what should be in "the core" of Zope 3. At the time. I fealt that that such a debate would be too much of a distraction.
Now (well, after the December release :), I think it's time to revisit what the core of Zope 3 is and how we manage the repository. There has been a trend to manage important components separately and link them in. I see this trend continuing. The advent of eggs and continuing maturation of zpkg and testing technology will accelerate this trend, IMO.
I agree.
I think that in the future, there may be a much smaller core Zope 3 project that represents the "object filing system" (zope.ofs? :). This core project may be a client of a collection of much smaller projects, such as zope.interface, zope.component. etc.. If that vision comes to pass, Zope 2 will no longer contain the Zope 3 core, but they will both share a large number of components which neither of them "contain". Obviously, this would radically change the nature of this debate.
Maybe not so. I think the essential vibe of the proposal remains: we want to converge on a technical level. And, as it has been expressed through my prosopal, it is my belief that this can be best achieved in one sandbox, not two. The following paragraph is a clear statement of yours on priorities, which I'll take as an edict. As my proposal points out, I set priorities a bit differently, but nonetheless I want to narrow the gap between Zope 2 and Zope 3 as soon as possible, too.
On the topic of leveraging Zope 2 developers for Zope 3, I'd first like to leverage more Zope 2 developers for Zope 2. :) I'd like to see people focussing more effort on the Zope 3 in Zope 2 work and narrow the gap between Zope 2 and Zope 3. I'm thrilled with the effort you and others have put in and am very hopeful that the Goldegg initiative will focus more effort here, as it already has. Some projects that I'd really like to see worked on soon:
- Use a common publisher framework
+1
- Use a common security framework
+1, though that'll be hard... I'll probably have to pass on this one.
- Share common ZPT implementations
+1
I'd love to participate in some sprints on these.
Me too.
After these things are done, and after we've had a chance to revisit the Zope 3 software organization, would be a good time to revisit how the Zope application server efforts should be managed.
Sounds like a good idea. I'll also soon bring in a proposal dealing with some minor issues that allow us to close many smaller gaps. Like someone in this huge thread suggested (can't remember who), there won't be much left of Zope 2 than Zope2, OFS, AccessControl, Acquisition, ZPublisher and Products...
I really want to reunite the Zope 2 and Zope 3 comunities. I'd be happy if, by the end of 2006 we could retire the Zope 3 lists and merge the discussions back into the main zope lists.
+100
P.S. Wow, what a huge number of messages in a day. :)
Tell me about it :). Philipp
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 11:03:35PM +0800, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
I'd love to participate in some sprints on these.
Me too.
PyCon Dallas 2006 is only 3 months away and would be a great opportunity for such sprints. There's nothing about Zope here yet: http://wiki.python.org/moin/PyCon2006/Sprints I plan to attend and I would really love to sprint on further "fivification" of zope 2. p.s. No, I can't volunteer to do any coordination work for this. I'll already have plenty to do preparing for my two (Five-related) talks. -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 11:03:35PM +0800, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
I'd love to participate in some sprints on these.
Me too.
PyCon Dallas 2006 is only 3 months away and would be a great opportunity for such sprints. There's nothing about Zope here yet: http://wiki.python.org/moin/PyCon2006/Sprints
I plan to attend and I would really love to sprint on further "fivification" of zope 2.
That'd be really cool.
p.s. No, I can't volunteer to do any coordination work for this. I'll already have plenty to do preparing for my two (Five-related) talks.
Cool to hear you're giving Five related talks. Is there any description of these available online? (not that it's likely I'll be able to attend PyCon, but I'm very curious) Regards, Martijn
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:59:46PM +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Cool to hear you're giving Five related talks. Is there any description of these available online? (not that it's likely I'll be able to attend PyCon, but I'm very curious)
http://wiki.python.org/moin/PyCon2006/Talks They're just basic "How to develop with Zope" and "...CMF" talks, with as much Five as I can squeeze in since it's 2006 and it would be criminal to ignore it :-) I will not even remotely attempt to be comprehensive or deep. It will be very challenging to work in the short time slots alotted! I was a bit surprised that both talks were accepted, I figured I'd be trumped by presentations from better-known people, but maybe there weren't any! -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com
On Thursday 24 November 2005 09:17, Jim Fulton wrote:
Now (well, after the December release :), I think it's time to revisit what the core of Zope 3 is and how we manage the repository. There has been a trend to manage important components separately and link them in. I see this trend continuing. The advent of eggs and continuing maturation of zpkg and testing technology will accelerate this trend, IMO.
I think that in the future, there may be a much smaller core Zope 3 project that represents the "object filing system" (zope.ofs? :). This core project may be a client of a collection of much smaller projects, such as zope.interface, zope.component. etc.. If that vision comes to pass, Zope 2 will no longer contain the Zope 3 core, but they will both share a large number of components which neither of them "contain". Obviously, this would radically change the nature of this debate.
I was counting on you making exactly this suggestion. :-) I agree with all of that. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 24 November 2005 09:17, Jim Fulton wrote:
Now (well, after the December release :), I think it's time to revisit what the core of Zope 3 is and how we manage the repository. There has been a trend to manage important components separately and link them in. I see this trend continuing. The advent of eggs and continuing maturation of zpkg and testing technology will accelerate this trend, IMO.
I think that in the future, there may be a much smaller core Zope 3 project that represents the "object filing system" (zope.ofs? :). This core project may be a client of a collection of much smaller projects, such as zope.interface, zope.component. etc.. If that vision comes to pass, Zope 2 will no longer contain the Zope 3 core, but they will both share a large number of components which neither of them "contain". Obviously, this would radically change the nature of this debate.
I was counting on you making exactly this suggestion. :-) I agree with all of that.
+lots ;-) Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
participants (7)
-
Alexander Limi -
Chris Withers -
Jim Fulton -
Martijn Faassen -
Paul Winkler -
Philipp von Weitershausen -
Stephan Richter