headers
John Landahl | 1 Jul 2004 04:30

Survey: PEAK community site

Just a quick survey for the PEAK community: is there any interest in having a 
Plone or Plone-like site for PEAK?

Personally I think it might foster more community involvement and would result 
in a more dynamic site.  People write submit short articles, code samples, 
case studies, etc. in their own area and submit them for inclusion on the 
front page when ready.  In the meantime others can review the work and offer 
suggestions, and after publishing the author can still make updates or 
corrections.  With author attribution and timestamps, readers can more easily 
determine the usefulness of any particular document (this is a big problem 
with the wiki approach in my opinion).  Content could also be cataloged 
automatically through Plone's keyword system, e.g. by conceptual area 
(storage, modeling, binding, etc.) and/or content theme (tutorial, code 
examples, case studies, etc.).  Wiki functionality (which is great for docs 
like user manuals) could still be maintained through Zwiki, which integrates 
well with Plone.

As a followup question: should such a site be developed independently by PEAK 
community members, or would it be better to have these features as part of 
PEAK's official home page?

The reason I ask is that I'd like to start contributing more documentation 
(though mostly as shorter, targeted articles at first) as well as help 
coordinate input from other community members.  I think Plone would be a 
great tool for the job, but I'd also like to hear what everyone else thinks.

- John
Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
Doug Quale | 1 Jul 2004 15:33
Favicon

Re: Survey: PEAK community site

John Landahl <john@...> writes:

> Just a quick survey for the PEAK community: is there any interest in having a 
> Plone or Plone-like site for PEAK?

I'm a newcomer to PEAK.  The mailing list hasn't been too busy lately,
but I would certainly use such a resource.

(This list is a very friendly place, so I hope to make it a little
busier soon by asking a few beginner's questions about peak.model and
peak.storage.)
Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Phillip J. Eby | 1 Jul 2004 18:33
Gravatar

Re: Survey: PEAK community site

At 08:33 AM 7/1/04 -0500, Doug Quale wrote:
>John Landahl <john@...> writes:
>
> > Just a quick survey for the PEAK community: is there any interest in 
> having a
> > Plone or Plone-like site for PEAK?
>
>I'm a newcomer to PEAK.  The mailing list hasn't been too busy lately,
>but I would certainly use such a resource.

Just as a point of clarification on John's survey: I think the question 
should perhaps be, is anyone interested in *helping build* and *write 
content for* such a site.  Or perhaps more precisely, "If you're not 
currently contributing content to the Wiki or mailing list, would you start 
if we had such a site?"

Obviously, everybody would be interested in having such a site, as long as 
there was content there.  :)
Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Doug Quale | 1 Jul 2004 19:50
Favicon

Re: Survey: PEAK community site

"Phillip J. Eby" <pje@...> writes:

> At 08:33 AM 7/1/04 -0500, Doug Quale wrote:
> >John Landahl <john@...> writes:
> >
> > > Just a quick survey for the PEAK community: is there any interest
> > in having a
> > > Plone or Plone-like site for PEAK?
> >
> >I'm a newcomer to PEAK.  The mailing list hasn't been too busy lately,
> >but I would certainly use such a resource.
> 
> Just as a point of clarification on John's survey: I think the
> question should perhaps be, is anyone interested in *helping build*
> and *write content for* such a site.  Or perhaps more precisely, "If
> you're not currently contributing content to the Wiki or mailing list,
> would you start if we had such a site?"
> 
> Obviously, everybody would be interested in having such a site, as
> long as there was content there.  :)

Well, I don't know Zope or Plone but I would like to contribute
content.  First I have to learn enough to have something of value to
share.  This puts me in a chicken or egg situation until I get more
practice with PEAK.  (I have made small corrections to some of the
tutorials on the wiki as I worked through them.)

Looking at the list archives last year you asked people not to promote
PEAK too vigorously yet because it was still in an early stage of
development.  It looks to me like you now have large parts of the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Paul Moore | 3 Jul 2004 11:26
Picon
Favicon

Re: Survey: PEAK community site

"Phillip J. Eby" <pje@...> writes:

> Just as a point of clarification on John's survey: I think the
> question should perhaps be, is anyone interested in *helping build*
> and *write content for* such a site. Or perhaps more precisely, "If
> you're not currently contributing content to the Wiki or mailing
> list, would you start if we had such a site?"

I agree - I'd love to have more PEAK resources, but I'm not convinced
that having another site would help. What is the advantage of Plone
(or a "Plone-like" site) over the Wiki? I've not used many Plone
sites, but my impression is that as well as content providers (which
are needed for the Wiki as well) they need administration, to publish
content.

So I'd ask people to consider: If you like this idea, what is stopping
you putting the same information into the Wiki?

Of course, I'm speaking as an information consumer, rather than a
producer, at the moment. Maybe when I understand things a bit better,
that will change. But if and when it does, I'd personally be happy
with the Wiki.

Paul.
--

-- 
"Bother," said the Borg, "We've assimilated Pooh."
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Jean Jordaan | 3 Jul 2004 11:40
Picon
Favicon

Re: Re: Survey: PEAK community site

> I've not used many Plone
> sites, but my impression is that as well as content providers (which
> are needed for the Wiki as well) they need administration, to publish
> content.

Depends on how you set it up. You can allow visitors to join, and
change the default workflow to allow members to publish themselves.

It's not "better" than a wiki, just different. More structured, in
the sense of folder hierarchies containing documents, news items,
links, etc. And it's more extensible, with forums, syndication,
polls, and all kinds of things available.

> But if and when it does, I'd personally be happy with the Wiki.

Wikis work fine in Plone :]

--

-- 
Jean Jordaan
http://www.upfrontsystems.co.za
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Kapil Thangavelu | 3 Jul 2004 16:44

Re: Survey: PEAK community site

On Jul 1, 2004, at 11:33 AM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:

> At 08:33 AM 7/1/04 -0500, Doug Quale wrote:
>> John Landahl <john@...> writes:
>>
>> > Just a quick survey for the PEAK community: is there any interest 
>> in having a
>> > Plone or Plone-like site for PEAK?
>>
>> I'm a newcomer to PEAK.  The mailing list hasn't been too busy lately,
>> but I would certainly use such a resource.
>
> Just as a point of clarification on John's survey: I think the 
> question should perhaps be, is anyone interested in *helping build* 
> and *write content for* such a site.  Or perhaps more precisely, "If 
> you're not currently contributing content to the Wiki or mailing list, 
> would you start if we had such a site?"
>
> Obviously, everybody would be interested in having such a site, as 
> long as there was content there.  :)
>

i'm not sure how much content i can contribute, but if by 'helping 
build' you meant setup/hosting, i'd be willing to setup and or host 
such a site.

-kapil
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Dave Kuhlman | 3 Jul 2004 19:43

Re: Re: Survey: PEAK community site

On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 10:26:37AM +0100, Paul Moore wrote:

[snip]

> Of course, I'm speaking as an information consumer, rather than a
> producer, at the moment. Maybe when I understand things a bit better,
> that will change. But if and when it does, I'd personally be happy
> with the Wiki.

+1 for the Wiki

And, since there already is a PEAK Wiki
(http://peak.telecommunity.com/DevCenter/FrontPage), I'm hoping
that more information on how to do things with PEAK will be added
to it.

I very much need information about how to:

1. Implement PEAK components.

2. Implement PEAK components that use other PEAK components.

3. Implement applications that use PEAK components.

Thanks for PEAK.

Dave

--

-- 
Dave Kuhlman
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Phillip J. Eby | 6 Jul 2004 03:41
Gravatar

PyProtocols 0.9.3 Release Candidate 1

PyProtocols 0.9.3 release candidate 1 is now available for 
download.  Assuming there are no bugs reported in the next 3-4 weeks, it 
will become the 0.9.3 final release in early August.

What is PyProtocols?
--------------------

PyProtocols is an extended implementation of PEP 246, adding a new 
"declaration  API" that lets you easily define your own interfaces and 
adapters, and declare what adapters should be used to adapt what types, 
objects, or interfaces.  Using PyProtocols, you can easily make flexible 
frameworks that you or other developers can extend without needing to 
modify the base framework.  PyProtocols interfaces can interoperate with 
those of Twisted and Zope, or can be used entirely standalone.

PyProtocols may be used, modified, and distributed under the same terms and 
conditions as Python or Zope.

What's new in version 0.9.3rc1? (Highlights)
--------------------------------------------

* Adapter factories can now accept just one argument, the way Twisted and 
Zope adapters do.

* Interface and protocol objects can be called, as a shortcut for 'adapt()' 
(as Zope and Twisted interfaces do)

* You can now more easily install PyProtocols without a C compiler, using 
the '--without-speedups' option to 'setup.py' (see the README.txt file for 
details.)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Phillip J. Eby | 7 Jul 2004 08:50
Gravatar

Persistence styles, MDA, AOP, PyProtocols, and PEAK

Preface
-------

This is a rather long article, even for me.  (And that's saying 
something!)  However, it addresses a coming "sea change" that will affect 
PEAK at many levels, including at least:

* PyProtocols

* peak.model and peak.storage

* peak.metamodels

* the AOP/module inheritance facilities in peak.config.modules

Naturally, I think the changes will be very good ones for PEAK, and they 
are unlikely to have effects on existing code that doesn't depend on any of 
the above.  In particular, I do not expect any destabilizing effects on the 
core (except perhaps peak.model) or any primitives.  (Some API changes in 
PyProtocols 1.0 are almost certain, however, with backwards-compatible APIs 
remaining available at least through 1.1.)

However, for the non-core packages, especially metamodels and the AOP 
stuff, major upheavals and/or outright replacement or removal are likely.

So... now that I have your attention, let me begin.  :)

How We Got Here
---------------
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 26 comments |

Gmane