-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I would add to Martijn points that we have a new framework (Zope3) providing a different architecture than Zope2 and a different paradigm. It means that porting CMF on Zope3 "as is" designed and built on Zope2 doesn't make a lot of sense. Of course, keeping the best practices and experiences of everybody is our strength. The concepts are important but the architecture needs to be a brandly new one taking adavantages as much as possible of Zope3. We'll deal with backward compatibility with the use of Five later on when we will start thinking about linking some of the new ECM components on the existing CMF running on top of Zope2. So let's talk about Zope2 CMS framework in term of concepts. BTW, Zope-2.8b2 is on schedule :) J. Martijn Faassen wrote: > Reinout van Rees wrote: > >> On Wed, 18 May 2005, Stefane Fermigier wrote: >> >> >>> 10/10 (or 20/20 or A+, whatever your grading scale is :) ). >> >> >> >> I'll take the 10, thank you :-) >> >> This also means that there's no CMF-to-zope3 porting in the pipeline? >> I mean, if something low in the stack is ported to zope3, the porting >> of everything above it is easier. >> > > No, many of the CMF concepts already exist in different form in Zope 3. > CMF doesn't contain everything we want in a content management stack by > far though. > > My gut feeling is that porting the CMF to Zope 3 would be > > a) very difficult > > b) of limited utility in porting the applications on top of it to Zope 3 > > but then I'm no CMF expert myself so I may be biased. :) > > Regards, > > Martijn > - -- Julien Anguenot | Nuxeo R&D (Paris, France) CPS Plateform : http://www.cps-project.org mail: anguenot at nuxeo.com; tel: +33 (0) 6 72 57 57 66 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCjKA9GhoG8MxZ/pIRAlAzAJ4wUTo++XJLaHOkeIAL6fGSNSDwmQCaAzc9 LttNmdZH8R23rbgiZkZBP8A= =A5AS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hosting: Nuxeo: Zope service provider