How to add existing folder in Zope
Hi, I want to add existing folder in zope. As we can add files by browsing how could I add existing folder. Thanks, Amol.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 27.03.2009 8:00 Uhr, amol kumbhar wrote:
Hi,
I want to add existing folder in zope. As we can add files by browsing how could I add existing folder.
This question does not make any sense. Anything existing can not be added. What do you mean? Take your time for asking meaningful questions. - -aj -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAknMzrQACgkQCJIWIbr9KYzGawCcD/byu3H/0Nc/i8ERV/0Smq95 kYAAoMAtRjPFKDaXAtpDAWlfQi+Gtqyx =Ba7/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Actually I want to use SmartClient for my web site and for this I have to add the SmartClient Library folder into zope so using this I can write JS which include these libraries. On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Andreas Jung <lists@zopyx.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 27.03.2009 8:00 Uhr, amol kumbhar wrote:
Hi,
I want to add existing folder in zope. As we can add files by browsing how could I add existing folder.
This question does not make any sense. Anything existing can not be added. What do you mean? Take your time for asking meaningful questions.
- -aj -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAknMzrQACgkQCJIWIbr9KYzGawCcD/byu3H/0Nc/i8ERV/0Smq95 kYAAoMAtRjPFKDaXAtpDAWlfQi+Gtqyx =Ba7/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hello, The best way to do it is probably to create a Zope product, and to put your js library into this product. Regards, Eric 2009/3/27 amol kumbhar <amol.kumbhar39@gmail.com>:
Actually I want to use SmartClient for my web site and for this I have to add the SmartClient Library folder into zope so using this I can write JS which include these libraries.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Andreas Jung <lists@zopyx.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 27.03.2009 8:00 Uhr, amol kumbhar wrote:
Hi,
I want to add existing folder in zope. As we can add files by browsing how could I add existing folder.
This question does not make any sense. Anything existing can not be added. What do you mean? Take your time for asking meaningful questions.
- -aj -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAknMzrQACgkQCJIWIbr9KYzGawCcD/byu3H/0Nc/i8ERV/0Smq95 kYAAoMAtRjPFKDaXAtpDAWlfQi+Gtqyx =Ba7/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Or you may be able to use CMF 'Filesystem directory view'. The easiest way to do that is to use Plone 3. I support the extjs javascript library two ways. In Plone I put the whole extjs directory into a filesystem directory view. In Zope I drop extjs into a directory served by apache. -Tim On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Eric Bréhault <ebrehault@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
The best way to do it is probably to create a Zope product, and to put your js library into this product.
Regards,
Eric
2009/3/27 amol kumbhar <amol.kumbhar39@gmail.com>:
Actually I want to use SmartClient for my web site and for this I have to add the SmartClient Library folder into zope so using this I can write JS which include these libraries.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Andreas Jung <lists@zopyx.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 27.03.2009 8:00 Uhr, amol kumbhar wrote:
Hi,
I want to add existing folder in zope. As we can add files by
browsing
how could I add existing folder.
This question does not make any sense. Anything existing can not be added. What do you mean? Take your time for asking meaningful questions.
- -aj -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAknMzrQACgkQCJIWIbr9KYzGawCcD/byu3H/0Nc/i8ERV/0Smq95 kYAAoMAtRjPFKDaXAtpDAWlfQi+Gtqyx =Ba7/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
_______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mar 27, 2009, at 18:11 , Tim Nash wrote:
Or you may be able to use CMF 'Filesystem directory view'. The easiest way to do that is to use Plone 3.
Telling someone to install all of Plone just to make filesystem content available seems insane, sorry. There are several products out there which can do the job, like LocalFS. jens -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAknNE78ACgkQRAx5nvEhZLLSZACgnouX6fbkoZjY1jI5KuER4iWt p40An1l92ewh+I0Gka3ak55qDlhWavQR =mqeJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Telling someone to install all of Plone just to make filesystem content available seems insane, sorry. There are several products out there which can do the job, like LocalFS.
LocalFS has been updated since 2006. There is nothing in the zope world that is as well maintained as plone. Sorry.
iEYEARECAAYFAknNE78ACgkQRAx5nvEhZLLSZACgnouX6fbkoZjY1jI5KuER4iWt
p40An1l92ewh+I0Gka3ak55qDlhWavQR
=mqeJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
make that: LocalFS hasn't been updated since 2006. There was a time when I would have agreed with you Jens, but the relentless changes to Zope has worn me down. Now I use what Plone uses and I only change zope versions when plone changes. On Mar 27, 2009 5:16pm, thedagdae@gmail.com wrote:
Telling someone to install all of Plone just to make filesystem content available seems insane, sorry. There are several products out there which can do the job, like LocalFS.
LocalFS has been updated since 2006. There is nothing in the zope world that is as well maintained as plone. Sorry.
iEYEARECAAYFAknNE78ACgkQRAx5nvEhZLLSZACgnouX6fbkoZjY1jI5KuER4iWt
p40An1l92ewh+I0Gka3ak55qDlhWavQR
=mqeJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
thedagdae@gmail.com schrieb:
make that: LocalFS hasn't been updated since 2006. it still works fine, there is only a line you have to change in its code where it pulls in security from cmf to some other cmf module. when starting up cmf tells you what is wrong. so its really easy to fix. robert
There was a time when I would have agreed with you Jens, but the relentless changes to Zope has worn me down. Now I use what Plone uses and I only change zope versions when plone changes.
On Mar 27, 2009 5:16pm, thedagdae@gmail.com wrote:
Telling someone to install all of Plone just to make filesystem content available seems insane, sorry. There are several products out there which can do the job, like LocalFS.
LocalFS has been updated since 2006. There is nothing in the zope world that is as well maintained as plone. Sorry.
iEYEARECAAYFAknNE78ACgkQRAx5nvEhZLLSZACgnouX6fbkoZjY1jI5KuER4iWt
p40An1l92ewh+I0Gka3ak55qDlhWavQR
=mqeJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
robert rottermann wrote:
thedagdae@gmail.com schrieb:
make that: LocalFS hasn't been updated since 2006. it still works fine, there is only a line you have to change in its code where it pulls in security from cmf to some other cmf module. when starting up cmf tells you what is wrong. so its really easy to fix. robert
Maybe you could take ownership and roll a release, preferably as an egg? Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mar 28, 2009, at 01:16 , thedagdae@gmail.com wrote:
Telling someone to install all of Plone just to make filesystem content available seems insane, sorry. There are several products out there which can do the job, like LocalFS.
LocalFS has been updated since 2006. There is nothing in the zope world that is as well maintained as plone. Sorry.
You're not getting my point. Why would I install a huge package just for one small functionality? jens -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAknN3K0ACgkQRAx5nvEhZLIFggCdHt42IgRINAX1PaDyEcH/+M2v OoYAni2eDjs8FaNzfA/Vir3qkgrgT1zc =bA60 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I get your point, I just don't agree with it. It is often easier to just install plone than it is to: 1. search and discover LocalFS 2. decide if it is too old or if it can be satisfactorily patched. 3. patch it (thank you Robert) 4. test, test and test it. 5. Hope that it still works in the next version of zope that comes out. 6. plan to test, test and test it in the next version of zope. And the next, and on and on. Or you can install plone and know that it has been well tested, it is well maintained and has a large community. One click and you are done. The next version of plone will also be well tested. Look, you can do it anyway you want but if you want to imply that my suggestion to use Plone is 'insane' you need to come up with a better alternative than LocalFS. But of course this is all moot. For most installs the best way to use large javascript libraries is to put it into an apache folder. On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 1:15 AM, Jens Vagelpohl <jens@dataflake.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Mar 28, 2009, at 01:16 , thedagdae@gmail.com wrote:
Telling someone to install all of Plone just to make filesystem content available seems insane, sorry. There are several products out there which can do the job, like LocalFS.
LocalFS has been updated since 2006. There is nothing in the zope world that is as well maintained as plone. Sorry.
You're not getting my point. Why would I install a huge package just for one small functionality?
jens
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
iEYEARECAAYFAknN3K0ACgkQRAx5nvEhZLIFggCdHt42IgRINAX1PaDyEcH/+M2v OoYAni2eDjs8FaNzfA/Vir3qkgrgT1zc =bA60 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
2009/3/28 Tim Nash <thedagdae@gmail.com>
I get your point, I just don't agree with it. It is often easier to just install plone than it is to: 1. search and discover LocalFS 2. decide if it is too old or if it can be satisfactorily patched. 3. patch it (thank you Robert) 4. test, test and test it. 5. Hope that it still works in the next version of zope that comes out. 6. plan to test, test and test it in the next version of zope. And the next, and on and on.
Or you can install plone and know that it has been well tested, it is well maintained and has a large community. One click and you are done. The next version of plone will also be well tested.
Look, you can do it anyway you want but if you want to imply that my suggestion to use Plone is 'insane' you need to come up with a better alternative than LocalFS.
But of course this is all moot. For most installs the best way to use large javascript libraries is to put it into an apache folder.
Installing Plone in such a case is only the solution if one has no better idea about doing things. The Filesystem Directory View functionality is available out-of-the-box through CMF (which is much smaller than Plone). There was also something like SkinnedFolder (I think) implementing are similar functionality. -aj
Installing Plone in such a case is only the solution if one has no better idea about doing things
*sigh* ...and people wonder why the zope community is dying. I have my very reasonable way of using zope/plone and personal attacks are not going to change my mind. On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Andreas Jung <lists@zopyx.com> wrote:
2009/3/28 Tim Nash <thedagdae@gmail.com>
I get your point, I just don't agree with it. It is often easier to just install plone than it is to: 1. search and discover LocalFS 2. decide if it is too old or if it can be satisfactorily patched. 3. patch it (thank you Robert) 4. test, test and test it. 5. Hope that it still works in the next version of zope that comes out. 6. plan to test, test and test it in the next version of zope. And the next, and on and on.
Or you can install plone and know that it has been well tested, it is well maintained and has a large community. One click and you are done. The next version of plone will also be well tested.
Look, you can do it anyway you want but if you want to imply that my suggestion to use Plone is 'insane' you need to come up with a better alternative than LocalFS.
But of course this is all moot. For most installs the best way to use large javascript libraries is to put it into an apache folder.
Installing Plone in such a case is only the solution if one has no better idea about doing things. The Filesystem Directory View functionality is available out-of-the-box through CMF (which is much smaller than Plone). There was also something like SkinnedFolder (I think) implementing are similar functionality.
-aj
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 28.03.2009 14:32 Uhr, Tim Nash wrote:
Installing Plone in such a case is only the solution if one has no better idea about doing things
*sigh* ...and people wonder why the zope community is dying.
I have my very reasonable way of using zope/plone and personal attacks are not going to change my mind.
It basically about looking left and right and choosing the right tool for a problem. Installing Plone for your usecase is totally inadequate. It's like driving with a tank to the supermarket around the corner for buying a banana. - -aj -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAknOfFQACgkQCJIWIbr9KYyQYQCg1OUf+mf2WJ8tghabke+zQ5ID AqgAn2eGCj99qvzljg19sRQBZhxb9X5B =2nHN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
No your response and Jens response are totally inappropriate. We will never rebuild this community if all our posts are greeted with personal attacks. Using plone for the said usecase is not inappropriate especially since using a directory view does not require using all of plone. Please keep your arguments reasonable and focused on the technology or the management of that technology. On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Andreas Jung <lists@zopyx.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 28.03.2009 14:32 Uhr, Tim Nash wrote:
Installing Plone in such a case is only the solution if one has no better idea about doing things
*sigh* ...and people wonder why the zope community is dying.
I have my very reasonable way of using zope/plone and personal attacks are not going to change my mind.
It basically about looking left and right and choosing the right tool for a problem. Installing Plone for your usecase is totally inadequate. It's like driving with a tank to the supermarket around the corner for buying a banana.
- -aj -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAknOfFQACgkQCJIWIbr9KYyQYQCg1OUf+mf2WJ8tghabke+zQ5ID AqgAn2eGCj99qvzljg19sRQBZhxb9X5B =2nHN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
+-------[ Tim Nash ]---------------------- | No your response and Jens response are totally inappropriate. We will never | rebuild this community if all our posts are greeted with personal attacks. You're not going to "rebuild" any community if given a choice of two items, they're told to install the largest most complicated of them. | Using plone for the said usecase is not inappropriate especially since using a | directory view does not require using all of plone. Yes, Jens failed to factor in ideology and laziness into the use-case. | Please keep your arguments reasonable and focused on the technology or the | management of that technology. OK. LocalFS works. It's small. It does the task that was asked for. There are various patches around that increase its performance to close to that of serving static content directly out of Apache. Serving from Apache works. It's external to Zope. It does the task that was asked for, but, can't be managed from inside Zope or it requires the Zope install to share a filesystem with Apache (to manage from zope). Plone works. It's huge. It's complicated. It does 1000x more things than was asked for and is not a solution that should be recommended to simply serve files from the file system. Get a grip. You might want to install plone to do it, but, 99 times out of 100 that isn't the correct solution to recommend to *anyone* that just wants to serve files from the file system. -- Andrew Milton akm@theinternet.com.au
Andrew, If you are going to ignore my arguments about Plone being well tested, easy to install and having a better upgrade path than a customized solution like patching localFS, then this is just a waste of everybody's time. On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Andrew Milton <akm@theinternet.com.au>wrote:
+-------[ Tim Nash ]---------------------- | No your response and Jens response are totally inappropriate. We will never | rebuild this community if all our posts are greeted with personal attacks.
You're not going to "rebuild" any community if given a choice of two items, they're told to install the largest most complicated of them.
| Using plone for the said usecase is not inappropriate especially since using a | directory view does not require using all of plone.
Yes, Jens failed to factor in ideology and laziness into the use-case.
| Please keep your arguments reasonable and focused on the technology or the | management of that technology.
OK.
LocalFS works. It's small. It does the task that was asked for. There are various patches around that increase its performance to close to that of serving static content directly out of Apache.
Serving from Apache works. It's external to Zope. It does the task that was asked for, but, can't be managed from inside Zope or it requires the Zope install to share a filesystem with Apache (to manage from zope).
Plone works. It's huge. It's complicated. It does 1000x more things than was asked for and is not a solution that should be recommended to simply serve files from the file system.
Get a grip. You might want to install plone to do it, but, 99 times out of 100 that isn't the correct solution to recommend to *anyone* that just wants to serve files from the file system.
-- Andrew Milton akm@theinternet.com.au
+-------[ Tim Nash ]---------------------- | Andrew, | If you are going to ignore my arguments about Plone being well tested, easy | to install and having a better upgrade path than a customized solution like | patching localFS, then this is just a waste of everybody's time. translation: If you don't agree with Tim he will stick his fingers in his ears and go "la la la la I'm not listening" -- Andrew Milton akm@theinternet.com.au
Tim Nash wrote:
If you are going to ignore my arguments about Plone being well tested,
it isn't.
easy to install
it isn't.
and having a better upgrade path than a customized solution like patching localFS,
it doesn't. deal with it. For whatever the OP is likely to want to do, he's probably *much* better off with Django, Pylons or repoze.bfg. Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
Tim Nash wrote:
No your response and Jens response are totally inappropriate. We will never rebuild this community if all our posts are greeted with personal attacks.
*This* community is dead, get over it and move on. Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
*This* community is dead, get over it and move on.
Yeah, you are right. If you really think zope 3 (or 4) can stand on it's own, just rename zope 2 to 'plone base'. That will cut down on the confusion. But beware, unless you can make zope 4 more appealling to a wider group of casual developers it will be reduced to little more than a well regarded library. Not anything an IT manager is in a hurry to bring in-house. You may want to take a good look at how much money you actually make on zope 3 consulting before you kill zope 2. Good luck and thanks for all the contributions. -Tim
2009/4/2 Tim Nash <thedagdae@gmail.com>:
If you really think zope 3 (or 4) can stand on it's own, just rename zope 2 to 'plone base'. That will cut down on the confusion.
There are many more that uses Zope 2 besides Plone. But it is true, and also likely A Good Thing that Zope 2 doesn't get many new users nowadays except via Plone. The effort of slowly moving Plone more and more onto Zope 3 is therefore very important. -- Lennart Regebro: Pythonista, Barista, Notsotrista. http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64
Tim Nash wrote:
*This* community is dead, get over it and move on.
Yeah, you are right.
If you really think zope 3 (or 4) can stand on it's own,
"zope 3 app server" has a small community of users who've indicated they're not wedded to that brand continuing. "the zope framework" is already in existence (no 4 release though!) and contains packages used by "zope 3 app server", "zope 2 app server", plone, repoze, grok and even twisted.
just rename zope 2 to 'plone base'. That will cut down on the confusion.
The fact that I don't think that's the case is why I haven't suggested that in the "Zope 4.0" thread...
But beware, unless you can make zope 4 more appealling to a wider group of casual developers it will be reduced to little more than a well regarded library.
That has already happened I'm afraid...
Not anything an IT manager is in a hurry to bring in-house.
I don't know any IT manager rushing to bring "Zope" in any shape or form in-house...
You may want to take a good look at how much money you actually make on zope 3 consulting before you kill zope 2.
I'm sure most of the people who make money from "zope" do so by selling solutions, not product or the "zope" brand. As such, if I put my business hat on, I'd be looking to Django, Pylons, Plone for consulting opportunities based on "brand" ;-) Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
Hi. FYI, I have a client using Zope 2 in production. I am migrating him from Zope 2.7 on SUSE 10.1 to Zope 2.10 on CentOS 5.2. He's not using plone. He has a custom Web app. He expects to keep using Zope 2, and to continue development of our Web application. Best, Aleksey Tsalolikhin Unix system administrator http://www.verticalsysadmin.com/
Aleksey Tsalolikhin wrote:
Hi. FYI, I have a client using Zope 2 in production. I am migrating him from Zope 2.7 on SUSE 10.1 to Zope 2.10 on CentOS 5.2.
He's not using plone. He has a custom Web app. He expects to keep using Zope 2, and to continue development of our Web application.
Yes, and there are many people in similar situations, but they're not new users coming to "Zope 2" ;-) Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
1) for the record, lapaye.fr is a (profitable) software editor that has been building business applications on the top of Zope 2 for 5 years (payroll software, not plone or whatever). We don't intend to switch to another platform in the foreseeable future [we're zope2.9 right now]. Python programmers aren't in short supply, and Zope can be taught to a Python programmer in a few weeks if we need to do that by ourselves. If Zope 2 doesn't change much, that's perfectly fine with me (except that I want my refresh back). 2) We never went to Zope 3 because nobody was able to demonstrate a convincing advantage over zope 2 3) Chris, I'm not sure about your point. Nobody starts a new application in COBOL nowadays, but it's one of the most solid area you can go for money, and I'm pretty sure it'll be the same 25 years from now. Regards. PS: 4) we're happy with xlwt too ! On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Chris Withers <chris@simplistix.co.uk>wrote:
Aleksey Tsalolikhin wrote:
Hi. FYI, I have a client using Zope 2 in production. I am migrating him from Zope 2.7 on SUSE 10.1 to Zope 2.10 on CentOS 5.2.
He's not using plone. He has a custom Web app. He expects to keep using Zope 2, and to continue development of our Web application.
Yes, and there are many people in similar situations, but they're not new users coming to "Zope 2" ;-)
Chris
-- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk _______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Andreas Jung wrote:
It basically about looking left and right and choosing the right tool for a problem. Installing Plone for your usecase is totally inadequate. It's like driving with a tank to the supermarket around the corner for buying a banana.
...a tank with some wheels missing, a hatch that might not open and a ticking bomb in its ammunition store :-P Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
Tim Nash wrote:
Installing Plone in such a case is only the solution if one has no better idea about doing things
*sigh* ...and people wonder why the zope community is dying.
That Zope community moved off and became the Plone community long ago. I'd argue that anyone starting a new project in plain Zope 2 nowadays would doesn't already have years of experience with Zope is making a mistake... ...and those people would probably use repoze nowadays anyway.
I have my very reasonable way of using zope/plone and personal attacks are not going to change my mind.
Pointing out you're wrong is not a personal attack. Telling you that you smell would be a personal attack ;-) Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
Andreas Jung wrote at 2009-3-28 14:13 -0500:
... Installing Plone in such a case is only the solution if one has no better idea about doing things. The Filesystem Directory View functionality is available out-of-the-box through CMF (which is much smaller than Plone). There was also something like SkinnedFolder (I think) implementing are similar functionality.
"SkinnedFolder" (at least if you mean "http://www.handshake.de/~dieter/pyprojects/zope/index.html#bct_sec_4.7") makes "CMFCore"'s "SkinsTool" available (without the need to use "CMFDefault" or portal objects). "FileSystemSite" (http://www.zope.org/Members/k_vertigo/Products/FileSystemSite) is the standalone "DirectoryView" functionality. -- Dieter
Once upon a time there was a man walking down the street. He came upon two neighbors in their driveways. One guy was washing his Z-Honda and the other guy was working on his Z-MG-midget. The pedestrian said "Hey, I'm thinking of getting a car to carry groceries home from the market" The Z-Honda guy said, "Why don't you get one of these Z-Honda's they do the job and they are easy to own" The Z-MG guy was a mechanic and he liked working on his Z-MG. he said "That Honda guy is insane, you should get a Z-MG. It is much better than a big Z-Honda" The Z-Honda guy said " I used to like working on Z-MGs but now I just drive a Z-Honda. I rarely need to take it to the mechanic" Then another neighbor came out the door. He was also a mechanic. In fact he worked at the z-car factory. "Hey" he said, "don't listen to that Honda guy, he doesn't know anything" Now all along, the Honda guy was wondering what the heck was going on down out the z-car factory. You see the z-car factory has been producing many new models of z-cars but they haven't included many interesting new features. In fact the factory has been taking features out of the z-cars. The factory claims that we all have to make adjustments so that we can have z cars made out of some fantastic new material called 'z-components'. The factory has been promising wonderful things will be coming from this new way of making z cars. The cars will be more like this fantastic new z-car called a 'z3' series. But the Honda guy hasn't seen any of these z3 cars around town. It seems nobody is buying them and they have been manufactured for many, many years. Furthermore, the Honda guy took a z3-car for a test drive one time and it looked like a research project. Everything required special configuration and the interface looked weird. What is worse they took out dtml which was one of the Honda guys favorite features. Zclasses and TTW editing were also gone. The Honda guy saw a lot of stuff missing from the z3 but he still wanted to believe the factory was right about z-components. He still appreciated the factories efforts, but many years went by and nobody outside of the factory became excited about the z3 line. "So why are they taking us in a direction that nobody seems to want to go" the Honda guy thought. "and with every new release, things are shuffled around. The only people who can tell what will work are the mechanics who work on z-cars everyday" Just then another neighbor , also a mechanic, came out the door and shouted " The honda guy is lazy. Don't listen to him" Eventually along came sheriff D in his patrol car. Now everybody knew that sheriff D was the brightest guy in town and if the z-car factory every does perfect their z-component manufacturing, the sheriff will be able to turn z-cars into whatever he wants to. "What is going on here" the sheriff said, "these guys are good mechanics. Their cars are wonderful. Why I once took one of these guys old cars and I converted it into a jet." Nobody doubted it. The sheriff had the skills. "There is no problem with these z-cars" he said. The Honda guy just sighed. "Well" he waved his hand at his mechanic neighbors. "I'm not crazy about the way these guys express their opinions but they have valid points of view. Me, I like my Honda, and if you go down to the market you will see a lot more Z-Hondas than Z-MGs" And with that he turned and went in his house. On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Dieter Maurer <dieter@handshake.de> wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote at 2009-3-28 14:13 -0500:
... Installing Plone in such a case is only the solution if one has no better idea about doing things. The Filesystem Directory View functionality is available out-of-the-box through CMF (which is much smaller than Plone). There was also something like SkinnedFolder (I think) implementing are similar functionality.
"SkinnedFolder" (at least if you mean "http://www.handshake.de/~dieter/pyprojects/zope/index.html#bct_sec_4.7") makes "CMFCore"'s "SkinsTool" available (without the need to use "CMFDefault" or portal objects).
"FileSystemSite" (http://www.zope.org/Members/k_vertigo/Products/FileSystemSite) is the standalone "DirectoryView" functionality.
-- Dieter
+-------[ Tim Nash ]---------------------- | [snip long story about noone paying attention to the actual requirements] I notice none of them installed plone either. -- Andrew Milton akm@theinternet.com.au
Dieter Maurer wrote:
"SkinnedFolder" (at least if you mean "http://www.handshake.de/~dieter/pyprojects/zope/index.html#bct_sec_4.7") makes "CMFCore"'s "SkinsTool" available (without the need to use "CMFDefault" or portal objects).
That might involve getting support from you though, Dieter, and that's not always a pleasant experience ;-)
"FileSystemSite" (http://www.zope.org/Members/k_vertigo/Products/FileSystemSite) is the standalone "DirectoryView" functionality.
Kapilware may leave you in a position of no support with someone laughing at you for using it. It's happened to me ;-) Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
Chris Withers wrote at 2009-4-2 20:22 +0100:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
"SkinnedFolder" (at least if you mean "http://www.handshake.de/~dieter/pyprojects/zope/index.html#bct_sec_4.7") makes "CMFCore"'s "SkinsTool" available (without the need to use "CMFDefault" or portal objects).
That might involve getting support from you though, Dieter, and that's not always a pleasant experience ;-)
Especially for people, like you, who are not ready to do their homework and want me to search the web for them ;-) -- Dieter
Tim Nash wrote:
Or you can install plone and know that it has been well tested, it is well maintained
Ho ho ho... surely you jest?!
Look, you can do it anyway you want but if you want to imply that my suggestion to use Plone is 'insane' you need to come up with a better alternative than LocalFS.
Actually, I'd back Jens on this one... You swallow Plohn you're swallowing one *huge* codebase that will have you trapped with some obscure set of versions of stuff (including Zope!) for years to come.
But of course this is all moot. For most installs the best way to use large javascript libraries is to put it into an apache folder.
Indeed. Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
thedagdae@gmail.com wrote at 2009-3-28 00:16 +0000:
... LocalFS has [not] been updated since 2006.
There is nothing in the zope world that is as well maintained as plone. Sorry.
I would like to stress that stable packages (those that do not need to be continously updated) are in fact a quality sign not an indication of poor maintenance. "LocalFS" (disclamer: it is not maintained by me) has worked unchanged across many Zope versions. I am using "LocalFS-1.3.andreas" since march 2005. For Zope 2.11, I had to make a minor adjustment because the Zope developers decided to move "OFS.content_types" to "zope.contenttype" without a redirection from old to new place. I consider this a Zope weakness not one of "LocalFS". For Zope 2.12, another minor adjustment will be necessary, because the Zope developers decided that modules should no longer be imported from "Globals" but instead from their primary location. I am very happy about stable packages because I often extend them. For example, I have extended "LocalFS" to allow configuration of its instances via environment variables. This allows us to synchronize our ZODBs in the test and development environments with the production environment (helpful to perform tests and resolve issues) even though the file system layout is different. Fewer updates means fewer merging in of our extensions -- with the corresponding work and testing. Of course, you are free to apply different quality criteria.... -- Dieter
Dieter Maurer wrote:
I am very happy about stable packages because I often extend them.
For example, I have extended "LocalFS" to allow configuration of its instances via environment variables. This allows us to synchronize our ZODBs in the test and development environments with the production environment (helpful to perform tests and resolve issues) even though the file system layout is different.
Then why not pick it up, release it and support it, since no-one else is doing so? ;-) Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
Chris Withers wrote at 2009-4-2 20:24 +0100:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
I am very happy about stable packages because I often extend them.
For example, I have extended "LocalFS" to allow configuration of its instances via environment variables. This allows us to synchronize our ZODBs in the test and development environments with the production environment (helpful to perform tests and resolve issues) even though the file system layout is different.
Then why not pick it up, release it and support it, since no-one else is doing so? ;-)
I am fine with the current situation (with respect to "LocalFS", not with respect to "Zope")... -- Dieter
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Chris Withers wrote at 2009-4-2 20:24 +0100:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
I am very happy about stable packages because I often extend them.
For example, I have extended "LocalFS" to allow configuration of its instances via environment variables. This allows us to synchronize our ZODBs in the test and development environments with the production environment (helpful to perform tests and resolve issues) even though the file system layout is different. Then why not pick it up, release it and support it, since no-one else is doing so? ;-)
I am fine with the current situation (with respect to "LocalFS", not with respect to "Zope")...
Then you're part of the Zope problem ;-) Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
+-------[ Chris Withers ]---------------------- | Dieter Maurer wrote: | > Chris Withers wrote at 2009-4-2 20:24 +0100: | >> Dieter Maurer wrote: | >>> I am very happy about stable packages because I often extend them. | >>> | >>> For example, I have extended "LocalFS" to allow configuration of | >>> its instances via environment variables. This allows us to synchronize | >>> our ZODBs in the test and development environments with the production | >>> environment (helpful to perform tests and resolve issues) even though | >>> the file system layout is different. | >> Then why not pick it up, release it and support it, since no-one else is | >> doing so? ;-) | > | > I am fine with the current situation (with respect to "LocalFS", | > not with respect to "Zope")... | | Then you're part of the Zope problem ;-) As opposed to random deprecation and removal of interfaces that causes otherwise working code to break ? -- Andrew Milton akm@theinternet.com.au
Andrew Milton wrote:
| > I am fine with the current situation (with respect to "LocalFS", | > not with respect to "Zope")... | | Then you're part of the Zope problem ;-)
As opposed to random deprecation and removal of interfaces that causes otherwise working code to break ?
Heh, Zope 2 has died a death of a thousand cuts. Plohn was a pretty big slice in that ;-) Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
amol kumbhar wrote at 2009-3-27 18:39 +0530:
Actually I want to use SmartClient for my web site and for this I have to add the SmartClient Library folder into zope so using this I can write JS which include these libraries.
If you have a web server before Zope (recommended for production use), then you can let the static library be directly delivered from the web server. This is usually far more efficient than delivery by Zope (about an order of magnitude). -- Dieter
participants (13)
-
Aleksey Tsalolikhin -
amol kumbhar -
Andreas Jung -
Andrew Milton -
Chris Withers -
Christophe Tronche -
Dieter Maurer -
Eric Bréhault -
Jens Vagelpohl -
Lennart Regebro -
robert rottermann -
thedagdae＠gmail.com -
Tim Nash