Yeah, the main issue is that I think the new structure at a high level can be a little confusing, since the Pylons name is changing from a framework to a project. The distinction between Pylons 1.0 and Pylons project makes it difficult to relay the Pylons name and the fact that Pyramid is a standalone framework kind of adds to the confusion. I can see a potentially common question"So...is Pyramid the new Pylons 2.0?".
I think it is important that it is stressed "pretty heavily" in docs/site etc that Pylons 1 isn't being killed off. I think a lot of people are misunderstanding and getting the impression that this is the case for one reason or another. Another issue I can see is that people don't understand what the difference of the changes are. Maybe a simple high level diagram would help? (I don't know if that is even possible, just a suggestion) Best, - Pyeek On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 9:31 AM, lcrees <[email protected]> wrote: > My $0.02 USD: > > As a longtime Pylons classic (1.x) and sometimes Zope 3 user, I'm > intrigued by Pyramids. > > A disclaimer: I was not fond of classical Zope 3 development. Since I > worked with a longtime Zope veteran (Jeff Shell), I know why Zope 3 > was an architectural improvement over Zope 2. But the application > development experience left a lot to be desired for me personally (the > ZCML requirement was one but not the only reason). However, the > essence of the ZCA was promising and I've followed the grok and repoze > initiatives with great interest as they experimented with ways to free > Zope 3 from Zope 3. > > The ZCA exists to free web framework developers from endless > subclassing. Zope 2 had endless subclassing and it began to wear on > people. Zope 3 was a radical break to free the Zope community from the > same problems that Mr. Bangert is facing with Pylons 1.x. The ZCA > unfortunately came about at a time when XML and Javaish enterprisy > terminology was all the rage and it reflects its passage through that > dark time. However, the vast, vast, vast, vast, vast, vast, vast > majority of Pylons web _application_ developers would never have to > face the agony of the raw ZCA, ZCML, or interfaces. That's something > for framework nerds and hardcore Zope veterans. Core ZCA components > like zope.component and zope.interface as well as other Zope > components are over five years old and rock solid. It's merely their > usability that has largely fallen short. Pyramids has the potential to > bring things the Zope community has had for years down from the > mountaintop to a larger community. In truth, the Zope legacy is little > more than an asterisk to future Pylons development. > > If Pylons/Pyramids/whatever is successfully packaged and sold, Zope 3 > may receive vindication in the end. > > Especially if people don't realize they're using Zope 3. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "pylons-discuss" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<pylons-discuss%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en.
