[ZWeb] Newbie thoughts on zope.org re-org

[Robert Rottermann]

And we could have a checkmark next to the product in the product directory
saying the it is fit for a given version (since its tests passed)
I agree with the concern that it is hardly possible to define accepted
standards how to measure "quality". It is much easier to define the
environment in which a unit test has to pass.
Robert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Everitt" <paul@zope.com>
To: "Bill Anderson" <bill@libc.org>
Cc: <Zope-web@zope.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: [ZWeb] Newbie thoughts on zope.org re-org


>
> Regarding product certification...I share Chris' concerns about how to
> pull it off.  But here's a different take...
>
> It's a challenge to get developers to adhere to standards.  Even on
> things like writing a little help file, writing unit tests, etc.  There
> just isn't much incentive.
>
> I talked with Matt Kromer here about a way to provide an incentive on
> this.  As some may know, Zope3 is being developed in a way where
> interfaces and unit tests are written before the code.  Unit tests are
> thus an integral part of the process.  In fact, zope-coders gets an
> email every night showing the state of the Zope CVS.
>
> Mozilla has a similar thing, though much more sophisticated, with
tinderbox.
>
> Imagine that we deeply instituted this by allowing product developers
> that "play by the rules" to have their unit tests run on the zope.org
> unit tester every night, with a report published to the web.  That is,
> every night zope.org would check out Zope, publish the unit test
> results, then do the same for all participating products.
>
> It isn't perfect, just as unit tests are perfect.  But it's useful,
> attractive, and pretty sexy.  Even better, I think it would help
> implement the new sentiment that we all work together better.
>
> --Paul
>
> Bill Anderson wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2001-12-05 at 10:58, alan runyan wrote:
> >
> >>>* I feel there is a very slight bias in Zope documentation to talk
about
> >>>how to code and design you own products rather than how to create a
> >>>typical usable site by plugging together whats there.
> >>>
> >>ZOPE in its current incarnation is really a development
> >>toolkit/framework/whatever you want to call it.  You really have to
kinda
> >>understand Object Oriented programming and python to 'get' ZOPE.  You
can
> >>get fairly far with mix and match of Products.  The prob is most
Products
> >>dont co-operate (being addressed by new architecture in Zope 3) without
lots
> >>of coding.
> >>
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> >
> > ...
> >
> >>>Maybe this is due to a lack of "out of the box site" type products but
> >>>starting with Zope I had to fight the feeling that I had to learn how
to
> >>>program/design with DTML and ZClasses just to put together a simple
> >>>site. You don't want to do that when you are starting, just seeing the
> >>>zope management interface for the first time can be overwhelming.
> >>>
> >>There is a lack of OOTB sites.  This could probably be solved with a
> >>OOTB-Zope distribution.  that came stock w/ RDBM adapters, pre-installed
> >>Products, and maybe a pre-populated ZODB.
> >>
> >
> > I've thought about this *a lot*. I've been kicking around the idea of a
> > ZODB-Distro CD for a long, long time. It would include a customization
> > script, and a custom (pre-populated) ZODB. If I had the default data.fs
> > population script, I'd probably had done it by now; it's make building
> > custom Data.fs'es much, much easier.
> >
> >
> >
> >>>* I'm still having problems finding Products/howtos. They are presented
> >>>as far too long a list and aren't easily searchable. Its a bit
> >>>frustrating to search for a product, download it, try it out for a
> >>>while, run into a problem, search the lists and find that the product
> >>>has been replaced by something else (ok extreme example).
> >>>
> >>not really an extreme example.  but I believe having some sort of
packaging
> >>system could help out.  we should come up with a Zope OOTB Certified
label
> >>that can be put on Products that can be installed w/o programming
> >>intervention.  I have always been a fan of 'certifying' products.
> >>Especially when it comes to RDBMS -- which Postgres Adapter should I
use?
> >>This could also lead to people being more organized on, 'things to do to
> >>make this product OOTB certified'  .... just throwing out ideas
> >>
> >
> >
> > Here is something else I've been thinking about too. At my day job, one
> > of my tasks is Mickeysoft certification of hardware. The though has
> > occurred to me that ZC could do something like that, for third-party
> > products. Something like this:
> >
> >  o Developer creates Zope products that does nifty stuff
> >
> >  o Developer submits product for certification to the a set of
> >    "standards", such as perhaps compliance with a Zope Standard Base
> >
> >  o ZC charges a small fee, perhaps variable by the complexity of the
> >    app.
> >
> > Of course, the fee would have to be quite small initially, or at least
> > for simpler products, otherwise it gets unused due to costs.
> >
> > Anyway, just some other ideas ... :)
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Zope-web maillist  -  Zope-web@zope.org
> > http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web
> >
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Zope-web maillist  -  Zope-web@zope.org
> http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web
>