Re: [Zope] Does anyone care whether we deprecate ZClasses?
Re: [Zope] Does anyone care whether we deprecate ZClasses? To: cyrj@cyr.info Cc: zope@zope.org Message-ID: <16980.19468.403174.741954@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Jonathan Cyr wrote at 2005-4-6 16:06 -0400:
... just show me how under-represented that beginner and intermediate Zope developers use this list... and then I think, perhaps there aren't any, just me and a few others... and if that's the case, Zope's screwed, and the horse I rode in on.
Do not worry too much!
Jim proposed to keep ZClasses alive until (at least) Zope 2.10. And he asks whether there is enough interest to keep them longer...
[...]
In fact, I have had ten times more problems with Archetypes (which I use now) than with ZClasses (which I used formerly).
Isn't Archetypes only for Plone? I mean, Plone is a very good *application* but I don't want to be locked on it. Just release a way to convert a Zclass to a Python Product (at least for the simplest ZClasses...). I'm stil stuck on convert that damn base class CatalogAware to CatalogPathAware, just to name something (CatalogAware) which is still there for no reason... :)
Yuri wrote at 2005-4-7 14:30 +0200:
... Isn't Archetypes only for Plone?
No, it can be used with pure CMF... ... if one is ready to fix a few Plone dependencies that creep in in most Archetype releases.
... Just release a way to convert a Zclass to a Python Product (at least for the simplest ZClasses...).
Unfortunaltely, even the most elementary things are missing: PropertySheet are one of the most essential parts of ZClasses -- and they can be extended later and all ZInstances see the changes. "PropertySheet"s are available for non ZClasses as well. But, this code is even less maintained than ZClasses and utterly broken. When I used them for a Python product, I had to fight for two days and had to heavily modify Zope code to get them working. I submitted a patch to the Zope collector but I had removed one bit of black magic too much -- and other products broke that were dependent on this magic. My patch which were already integrated into the Zope sources were reverted and never considered again (though I provided a correction) Thus, "PropertySheet"s are still utterly broken (outside of our private Zope copy).
I'm stil stuck on convert that damn base class CatalogAware to CatalogPathAware, just to name something (CatalogAware) which is still there for no reason... :)
One of my first steps in Zope land was to put Zope in "cvs" and fix whatever I considered broken. Maintaining one's private Zope version in a revision control system allows to fix bugs without loosing the ability to upgrade to new public versions (and semi automatically have the own modifications merged in). -- Dieter
On 07.Apr 2005 - 20:13:58, Dieter Maurer wrote:
Yuri wrote at 2005-4-7 14:30 +0200:
... Isn't Archetypes only for Plone?
No, it can be used with pure CMF... ... if one is ready to fix a few Plone dependencies that creep in in most Archetype releases.
... Just release a way to convert a Zclass to a Python Product (at least for the simplest ZClasses...).
Unfortunaltely, even the most elementary things are missing:
PropertySheet are one of the most essential parts of ZClasses -- and they can be extended later and all ZInstances see the changes.
"PropertySheet"s are available for non ZClasses as well. But, this code is even less maintained than ZClasses and utterly broken.
Hmm, could you (just for my own interest) point out the difference between PropertySheets and ProperyManager (which I used to define properies for my own product-classes)? IIRC PropertySheets allow to have multiple "groups" of properties on the same Object, but is there more? Andreas -- Write yourself a threatening letter and pen a defiant reply.
On Apr 8, 2005 12:15 AM, Andreas Pakulat <apaku@gmx.de> wrote:
Hmm, could you (just for my own interest) point out the difference between PropertySheets and ProperyManager (which I used to define properies for my own product-classes)? IIRC PropertySheets allow to have multiple "groups" of properties on the same Object, but is there more?
If I remember correctly, it also allows you do have the property definition stored somewhere else than on the object itself, and is allows you to store the properties somewhere else than as attributes. It's a bit complex to use, and the property types definitions are too inflexible for practical use, which is why archetypes, CPSSchemas and Zope3 schemas exists now. :-) -- Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo http://www.nuxeo.com/ CPS Content Management http://www.cps-project.org/
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dieter Maurer" <dieter@handshake.de> (...)
I submitted a patch to the Zope collector but I had removed one bit of black magic too much -- and other products broke that were dependent on this magic. My patch which were already integrated into the Zope sources were reverted and never considered again (though I provided a correction) Thus, "PropertySheet"s are still utterly broken (outside of our private Zope copy).
If that's what it takes to try a ZClasses->PythonProduct converter, then my logic tells me "core maintainers should allow that patch to find it's way to the official release". Did I miss something regarding the calls to help? Because if that happens to Dieter's willingness, then what would happen to ours? ;) Ausum
participants (5)
-
Andreas Pakulat -
Ausum Studio -
Dieter Maurer -
Lennart Regebro -
Yuri