[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] Two visions

2006-03-07 Thread Chris McDonough

On Mar 6, 2006, at 9:21 PM, Jake wrote:

I think it is a huge mistake to lose Zope branding. After years of  
building up momentum behind a project, to head off into some  
strange developer code speak is just going to lose people who are  
not intimately involved.


The world, after many  years, gets versions. Stick to it.

Works:
Mac OS9 - Mac OSX (10)

Here was a mistake:
Mosaic - Netscape - Netscape Communicator - Netscape Gold -  
Firebird - Mozilla - Firefox


Considering Firefox has nearly 15% marketshare today, I'd call it a  
success.  It certainly could have been worse had Netscape not done  
the hail mary of releasing it under another name that wasn't  
conflated with its own brand (witness the takeup rate of Netscape 6/7).


- C

___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce

http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] Two visions

2006-03-01 Thread Stephan Richter
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 06:51, Martijn Faassen wrote:
snip great discussion
 I think we can just carry on this message.

I could not agree more. I have nothing to add at this point.

Regards,
Stephan
-- 
Stephan Richter
CBU Physics  Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student)
Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] Two visions

2006-03-01 Thread Stephan Richter
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 00:33, Jeff Shell wrote:
 All of these big features are neat and well. But I want less. I don't
 know how to use less. There are dependencies on zope.app creeping into
 packages allowed in zope.*, and I understand that more of that is
 likely to happen in the future. And that terrifies me.

Don't be. :-) It is the first step of actually making zope.app *much* smaller. 
This in turn will mean that you might be able to develop apps without relying 
on zope.app at all, which is better for you, since you can control the 
installed components better. I think by finding a good packaging solution and 
staying the path of reducing zope.app we will achieve what you want. :-)

Regards,
Stephan
-- 
Stephan Richter
CBU Physics  Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student)
Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] Two visions

2006-03-01 Thread Stephan Richter
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 07:39, Martijn Faassen wrote:
 I know I sound conservative here, but I'm actually happy with the way
 things are working now. Let's not fix what isn't broken. We can make
 incremental steps to making it better, and I'm glad people are starting
 to understand the ideas behind Five, but I don't see the need for a
 change of direction.

A strong +1.

Wow, I agree with Martijn for three posts in a row; that has not happened for 
a long time. :-)

Regards,
Stephan
-- 
Stephan Richter
CBU Physics  Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student)
Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] Two visions

2006-03-01 Thread Stefane Fermigier
Stephan Richter wrote:
 On Tuesday 28 February 2006 07:39, Martijn Faassen wrote:
   
 I know I sound conservative here, but I'm actually happy with the way
 things are working now. Let's not fix what isn't broken. We can make
 incremental steps to making it better, and I'm glad people are starting
 to understand the ideas behind Five, but I don't see the need for a
 change of direction.
 

 A strong +1.

 Wow, I agree with Martijn for three posts in a row; that has not happened for 
 a long time. :-)
   

+1 for me also.

  S.

-- 
Stéfane Fermigier, Tel: +33 (0)6 63 04 12 77 (mobile).
Nuxeo Collaborative Portal Server: http://www.nuxeo.com/cps
Gestion de contenu web / portail collaboratif / groupware / open source!

___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] Two visions

2006-02-28 Thread Martijn Faassen

Jim Fulton wrote:

I'd like to get feedback on two possible visions for the future of
Zope 2 and Zope 3.  


1) Our current vision (AFAIK) is that Zope 3 will eventually
   replace Zope 2

[snip]


2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.

[snip]


Thoughts?


My initial reaction is: don't change the names (or at least be extremely 
careful about this). Zope 3 has a brand and we'd risk throwing it all 
away. We also risk being seen as wavering on the course.


I don't see the two proposals as mutually exclusive, and I think both 
are true right now. Zope 3 is replacing Zope 2 for some new 
applications. Zope 2 is evolving towards Zope 3 for existing applications.


I wrote a piece of text about the relationship between Zope 2 and Zope 3 
that might help in this discussion:


[snip section about Zope being mature]

Going forward
-

We are applying our hard-earned lessons by making Zope better. The web
is evolving and so is Zope, continuously striving to further increase
Zope's power, flexibility and functionality.

A visionary project was started in 2001 to build the next generation
of Zope software, `Zope 3`_. Zope 3 uses powerful component technology
to further increase the already strong extensibility and flexibility
of the Zope platform. The Zope 3 project is benefiting in this from
the deep experience of a large community of Zope 2 developers.

Zope 2 is not being left behind however: the Zope community initiated
a project called Five_ (2 + 3) to bring Zope 3 technology, where
mature technology is ported back into the Zope 2 platform to obtain
the best of both worlds. Zope 2 now contains Zope 3 technology and
will go forward on this path with every release, while Zope 3 is
forging ahead to explore new possibilities.

Zope 2 and Zope 3 are evolving together this way, both benefiting from
each other's strengths, until the differences between the two
eventually disappear.

Zope 2 and Zope 3
-

Zope comes in two flavors, Zope 2 and Zope 3. Zope 2 is a mature,
compatible and reliable platform that supports an enormous amounts of
features. It's the workhorse of our community. Zope 3 provides a
powerful component architecture and a clean, elegant architecture that
is a developer's dream. It's our community's thoroughbred.

It can be hard to choose between the two. Eventually you won't have to
as they're evolving towards each other [Going Forward]. But how do you
choose now? Here are some rough guidelines:

If you are a hard-core developer, looking for power and flexibility in
a clean architecture, and if you are building a new web application,
you may want to consider Zope 3.

If you want to make use of the rich variety of powerful Zope 2
software, need community, support and stability, consider Zope 2. And
don't forget that with the Five_ (2 + 3) project, you can already
start using Zope 3 technologies from within the safety of Zope 2.

Whether you choose Zope 2 or Zope 3 for your project, you will reach
the same future, just by a different path. Which path is better for
you we leave up to you.



I think the right way to go forward is to stay the course on this. Zope 
3 is the future of Zope 2. Zope 2 will continue to evolve in the 
direction of Zope 3, while Zope 3 forges ahead. The difference between 
themselves will eventually disappear.


Perhaps what I'm describing is already what you describe for Zope 5. I 
just don't see the reason to actually change the names, or to imply that 
Zope 3 does *not* have a future as a platform to build on, which could 
be seen as an implication of going with Zope 5.


Changing names and version numbers around is not going to help anyone 
very much and I think could in fact be damaging. I think we're actually 
reaching some clarity of where we are going, people are starting to get 
the idea, and we just need to communicate it better to the wider world, 
not change our message.


The pent-up demand for Zope 3 technology from Zope 2 developers that 
existed for a long time in the Zope 2 world while Zope 3 was under 
development has now been safely channeled into Five-related projects - 
people can actually use Zope 3 technology right now and worry less about 
the future. The meme Evolution not revolution which I have tried to 
spread along with Five has taken hold in the various Zope subcommunities.


Here's some more of what I wrote:

:Q: What's Zope? What's it good for?
:A: It's a web application platform that can be used to build web
applications, CMSes, etc.

:Q: Where's zope coming from? is this some new thing?
:A: No, it's mature. We got tons of experience and community and stuff.

:Q: By 'mature' do you mean Zope is old cruft?
:A: Nope, it's going forward, and has been working on this for
years. (Zope 3)

:Q: Well what's all this Zope 2 and zope 3 then? should I worry?
:A: Nope, we are managing this, you can use either, and get the
benefits of both.  (Five)

I think we can just carry on this message.


[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] Two visions

2006-02-28 Thread Martijn Faassen

Hey,

I have another comment about Zope 5, sparked by something Jeff Shell wrote.

Currently we have a clear path to evolution. Zope 3 evolves at its pace, 
and Zope 2 evolves mostly by catching up with Zope 3, replacing more and 
more bits with Zope 3 bits, which often takes considerable ingenuity. We 
have shown that we have enough developers to sustain this both for Zope 
3 and Zope 2 development. We know how to do it.


Any shift to a Zope 5 vision where Zope 3 and Zope 2 are profiles of the 
same application would require a considerable investment of development 
time that we don't have, or alternatively, endless waiting.


Zope 5 will in fact be very similar to one interpretation of the dreaded 
X in Zope X3: a version of Zope 3 that's backwards compatible with Zope 
2. I'm skeptical about ever getting this done in revolution style 
development, and holding it up as the future will prompt remarks like 
When is Zope 5 going to be done? while nobody is actually doing 
anything about it. This is very very bad marketing. I really really want 
to avoid a repeat of history here...


Meanwhile, I think the current path gets us to a future where the 
difference between Zope 2 and Zope 3 will become less, and it will be 
more and more possible to write Zope 3 applications in Zope 2, and more 
and more Zope 2 pieces will be replaced with pieces from Zope 3. This 
vision has been sold to the community already and we're on track.


So, my proposal would be to tone down the vision to what we have 
already: a co-evolving Zope 3 and Zope 2, with Zope 2 following and Zope 
3 leading (or Zope 2 driving Zope 3 forward, however you want to see 
it). No renaming necessary. No change of course necessary. Zope 2 can 
stick to Zope 2 features as long as necessary so there's no rush to 
replicate Zope 2 functionality in Zope 3 any time soon. At the same 
time, Zope 2 requirements can drive the evolution of Zope 3.


I know I sound conservative here, but I'm actually happy with the way 
things are working now. Let's not fix what isn't broken. We can make 
incremental steps to making it better, and I'm glad people are starting 
to understand the ideas behind Five, but I don't see the need for a 
change of direction.


Regards,

Martijn
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce

http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] Two visions

2006-02-28 Thread Stephan Richter
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 03:58, Shane Hathaway wrote:
 Unfortunately, this discussion is too fuzzy for me to understand exactly
 what's being proposed.  How about something concrete: will the Zope 3 in
 vision #2 have a ZMI, and will typical ZODB objects have a __parent__
 and __name__?  (Either yes or no is fine, but maybe or sometimes is
 a lot harder to interpret.)

I agree.

Regards,
Stephan
-- 
Stephan Richter
CBU Physics  Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student)
Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists -
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] Two visions

2006-02-28 Thread Benji York

Martijn Faassen wrote:
So, my proposal would be to tone down the vision to what we have 
already: a co-evolving Zope 3 and Zope 2, with Zope 2 following and Zope 
3 leading (or Zope 2 driving Zope 3 forward, however you want to see 
it). No renaming necessary. No change of course necessary. Zope 2 can 
stick to Zope 2 features as long as necessary so there's no rush to 
replicate Zope 2 functionality in Zope 3 any time soon. At the same 
time, Zope 2 requirements can drive the evolution of Zope 3.


An emphatic +1.
--
Benji York
Senior Software Engineer
Zope Corporation
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce

http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] Two visions

2006-02-28 Thread Gary Poster


On Feb 28, 2006, at 9:30 AM, Benji York wrote:


Martijn Faassen wrote:
So, my proposal would be to tone down the vision to what we have  
already: a co-evolving Zope 3 and Zope 2, with Zope 2 following  
and Zope 3 leading (or Zope 2 driving Zope 3 forward, however you  
want to see it). No renaming necessary. No change of course  
necessary. Zope 2 can stick to Zope 2 features as long as  
necessary so there's no rush to replicate Zope 2 functionality in  
Zope 3 any time soon. At the same time, Zope 2 requirements can  
drive the evolution of Zope 3.


An emphatic +1.


Heh, in retrospect, my I guess we should go with plan 2 post comes  
off a bit like Marc Antony's speech in Julius Caesar:


Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him;
The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interréd with their bones,
So let it be with Caesar.

...Then Antony goes on to praise Caesar. :-)

I'm also +1 on Martijn's approach: let's keep Zope 3 around, and stay  
the course.


Also,

On Feb 28, 2006, at 10:06 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:

I think focusing on one app server and a dedicated set of libraries
would be a good alternative to two concurring app servers.


...if the single app server is based on acquisition,  
__bobo_traverse__ and friends, objectValues and friends, ZCatalog,  
and so on, I'd rather have two, thanks: at least I can have one I like.


Gary___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists -
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] Two visions

2006-02-28 Thread Martijn Faassen

Gary Poster wrote:
[snip]

On Feb 28, 2006, at 10:06 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:


I think focusing on one app server and a dedicated set of libraries
would be a good alternative to two concurring app servers.


...if the single app server is based on acquisition,  __bobo_traverse__ 
and friends, objectValues and friends, ZCatalog,  and so on, I'd rather 
have two, thanks: at least I can have one I like.


I can see where Philipp is coming from: yes, it would be good to 
collapse the Zope 2 and Zope 3 communities into one if that frees up 
more development resources and lets us do less duplicate work.


This cannot however be done by big steps or mandate or changing names, 
and this is where I think I disagree with Philipp somewhat.


We're on the right track already. The communities are merging into a 
single community. Just compare today with the situation just one year 
ago - massive changes everywhere, and positive ones.


Merging communities can be done by making it easier for people from the 
communities to work together (for instance by working on Five) and by 
evangelizing (you can use Zope 3 in Zope 2, today). It's fairly subtle 
work and it takes a long time. Philipp is doing great on all these 
fronts and without him Five wouldn't be where it is today.


I just don't understand how the current zed/Zope 5 proposals would make 
everything go faster or be easier or be clearer...


Regards,

Martijn
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce

http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] Two visions

2006-02-27 Thread Andrew Sawyers
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 10:37 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
 I'd like to get feedback on two possible visions for the future of
 Zope 2 and Zope 3.  
 
 1) Our current vision (AFAIK) is that Zope 3 will eventually
replace Zope 2
 
- There will be lots of overlap between the Zope 2 and Zope 3
  lifetimes.  (Zope 2 might be supported more or less
  forever.)
 
- Eventually, the gap between Zope 2 and will become very small. 
  requiring a small leap.
 
In this vision, Zope 3 would have to become a lot more like
Zope 2, or we would lose features.
-1
   

 2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.

 
- Zope 5 will be the application server generally known as Zope.  It
  will be backward compatible (to the same degree that Zope 2
  releases are currently backward compatible with previous Zope 2
  releases) with Zope 2.  Zope 5 will similarly be backward
  compatible with Zope 3 applications built on top of the current
  Zope 3 application server.
 
  Note that Zope 5 will leverage Zope 3 technologies to allow a
  variety of configurations, including a Zope 2-like configuration
  with implicit acquisition and through-the-web development, and a
  Zope 3-like configuration that looks a lot like the current Zope
  3 application server.  Maybe, there will be a configuration that
  allows Zope 2 and Zope 3 applications to be combined to a
  significant degree.
 
- Zope 3 will explode. :)
 
  For many people, Zope 3 is first a collection of technologies
  that can be assembled into a variety of different applications.
  It is second a Zope 2-like application server.  I think that
  these folks aren't really interested in the (Zope 2-like)
  application server.
 
  Zope 3 will continue as a project (or projects) for creating
  and refining these technologies.  
 
  (It would probably make sense for this activity to to have some
   name other than Zope.  On some level, the logical name would
   be Z (pronounced Zed :).  An argument against Z is that 
   it would be hard to google for, but Google handles such queries
   quite well and I'd expect that we'd move to the top of Google Z
   search results fairly quickly.  However, I'll leave naming
   decisions to experts. ;)
 
Advantages of this vision:
 
- Zope 2 users don't need to leave Zope 2. 
 
- Zope 3 doesn't have to reproduce all Zope 2 features.
 
- There wouldn't be confusion about 2 Zopes.
 
It is important that Zope 5 be backward compatible with both Zope 2
and Zope 3, although not necessarily in the same
configuration. Many people are building Zope 3 applications today
and they should not be penalized.
 
 Thoughts?
+2 

I personally think that one of the great things about what has come out
of Zope 3 development:  other projects can use the technologies without
taking Zope 3 lock stock and barrel.  I'd hate to see Zope 3 get more
girth and loose future traction because it had to be fully backwards
compatible with Zope 2.  For those who wish to slowly migrate to using
Zope 3 technologies without completely rewriting their software,
evolving via Five is a fair approach.  

To quote a blog I'd read earlier today:  Doing little things well is a
step towards doing big things better.

Allowing others to assist in refining the little technologies which make
up Zope 3 can achieve this goal.  I would fear this would be impossible
if the first vision was followed.

Andrew Sawyers
 
 Jim
 

___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] Two visions

2006-02-27 Thread Dario Lopez-Kästen

My 2 EuroCents:

Vision 1 is, I think what is happening at the moment for pragamatic and 
practical reasons. Drawbacks of this is that we loose the ZopeX3 
(Zope3X?) vision of cutting loose from old burdens and take off to new 
horizons.


Vision 2, on the other hand (at least to me in my 
not-really-started-with-z3-development-yet situation), is a lot more 
appealing for a variety of reasons, not the least that choosing working 
development model (zope2 and zope3 for starters, there may be others) 
becomes a configuration(*) issue.


The potential benefits of this approach are very appealing (almost like 
eating the cake and still having it :), so I vote for vision 2.


/dario

(*) Configuration in a broad sense: mind model, conf-files, development 
model, etc...

--
-- ---
Dario Lopez-Kästen, IT Systems  Services Chalmers University of Tech.
Lyrics applied to programming  application design:
emancipate yourself from mental slavery - redemption song, b. marley

___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce

http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] Two visions

2006-02-27 Thread Stephan Richter
On Monday 27 February 2006 10:37, Jim Fulton wrote:
 1) Our current vision (AFAIK) is that Zope 3 will eventually
    replace Zope 2

 2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.

As you probably know already, I am -1 on the second proposal, since it will 
disallow us to finally get rid of the old Zope 2 code. Anyways, since I think 
the vision has too littel technical detail for my taste, I would really like 
to see some prototyping before I give my final vote.

I just want to be ensured that I do not have to deal with additional overhead 
(i.e. learn Zope 2 again), but can develop Zope 3 applications as I like it.

Regards,
Stephan
-- 
Stephan Richter
CBU Physics  Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student)
Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists -
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] Two visions

2006-02-27 Thread Gary Poster


On Feb 27, 2006, at 10:37 AM, Jim Fulton wrote:


2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.


Of the two, this seems more believable.  It also may be the best we  
can do.  However, I still don't like it. :-)


   - Zope 5 will be the application server generally known as  
Zope.  It

 will be backward compatible (to the same degree that Zope 2
 releases are currently backward compatible with previous Zope 2
 releases) with Zope 2.


This is reasonable, though I don't love it.


  Zope 5 will similarly be backward
 compatible with Zope 3 applications built on top of the current
 Zope 3 application server.


This gets to the heart of my concern, I guess (see below).


 Note that Zope 5 will leverage Zope 3 technologies to allow a
 variety of configurations, including a Zope 2-like configuration
 with implicit acquisition and through-the-web development, and a
 Zope 3-like configuration that looks a lot like the current Zope
 3 application server.  Maybe, there will be a configuration that
 allows Zope 2 and Zope 3 applications to be combined to a
 significant degree.


You say that one of the advantages of this vision is that There  
wouldn't be confusion about 2 Zopes.  I'm afraid that's wishful  
thinking, if you want Zope 5 to include a Zope 3-like web  
configuration.


If you are going to pursue a Zope Five and the artist formerly known  
as Zope 3 vision, in which Zope is a single clear product, then it  
seems to me that Zope Five should be one or the other, and that's  
what books should describe.  A Zope 2 derivative a la Five makes  
sense, given Zope's history and current users.


More below.


   - Zope 3 will explode. :)

 For many people, Zope 3 is first a collection of technologies
 that can be assembled into a variety of different applications.
 It is second a Zope 2-like application server.  I think that
 these folks aren't really interested in the (Zope 2-like)
 application server.


There are some--Steve Alexander and Canonical, maybe?--who might not  
care about anything beyond choosing among the bag of technologies.   
But I assert with the right of speaking loudly (i.e., I have no way  
to prove this) that there are many who appreciate the bag of  
components design who still want to buy into some of the Zope 3 as  
web application server story.


For instance, if you mean by a Zope 2-like application server an  
Object File System approach then I certainly hope you are wrong.   
Even though I don't care much about the Zope 3 ZMI, Zope 3  
encapsulates some web app design decisions I would be loathe to  
lose.  I much prefer the Zope 3 approach to OFS, with __parent__  
rather than acquisition wrappers, a dict interface rather than  
objectValues and friends, and traversal adapters rather than  
__bobo_traverse__ and friends.  If acquisition and all the rest are  
on the way to being replaced within Zope 2/5, then...yay?  but then  
how is it still Zope 2 backward compatible?  They seem core to Zope  
2 to me.  And the Zope 3 versions of the decisions inform many Zope 3  
component designs.


Do you mean that the Zope 3 users don't need Zope 2 cataloging and  
indexing?  Surely not, and yet again moving Zope Five to the Zope 3  
catalog seems pretty questionable as Zope 2 backward compatible.   
And I *much* prefer the zope.index/zope.app.keyref/zope.app.intid  
combo in Zope 3.


Do you mean that Zope 3 users aren't looking for a better designed  
web app than Zope 2, that looks less long-in-the-tooth (as I've  
seen blogs call Zope 2), that has more industrial-strength  
flexibility and hard-won design experience than the current crop of  
competitors?  I don't think so: I assert that developers of a certain  
inclination are attracted to the cleanliness of Zope 3 as a web app,  
and not as attracted to the cruft that accumulates in an older, very  
successful project like Zope 2.  Some of those are new Zope  
developers, and some are prominent older Zope developers.


Do you mean that Zope 3 users don't want a robust, battle-hardened  
web publisher like the Zope 2 publisher?  I think many do.


So, I assert that many Zope 3 users, who are in it for the bag of  
components, *do* want a web application server.  If I'm  
misunderstanding you, then, as Stephan said, maybe you could explain  
more.


(Almost done, but still more below)


 Zope 3 will continue as a project (or projects) for creating
 and refining these technologies.

 (It would probably make sense for this activity to to have some
  name other than Zope.  On some level, the logical name would
  be Z (pronounced Zed :).  An argument against Z is that
  it would be hard to google for, but Google handles such queries
  quite well and I'd expect that we'd move to the top of Google Z
  search results fairly quickly.  However, I'll leave naming
  decisions to experts. ;)


If this is the plan, then I guess I