So, I think 1 and 2 aren't that far apart sometimes.
I agree with this...and I think biggest wins are somewhere in between.
I don't necessarily want a compatibility layer, I just want the
declarative quality of AT to spit out something I could play with more
sensibly using the z3 paradigm. And I want people to be able to get a
feel for the power of the z3 way of doing things in small bitesize pieces.
Once you can do this, tutorials and documentation make sense, because
the investment require before getting a payoff is low.
Additionally, I think sometimes doing some of 1 can be beneficial to 2.
In particular, it may be worthwhile to start supporting Z3 widgets in
Archetypes (I read somewhere that plone_schema makes this possible
already? Cool!). In that case, it may make sense to adapt Archetypes to
support them, in turn stimulating people to port their widgets, or write
new widgets that way at least. That way, they get immediate
functionality while doing the right thing for future development, and Z3
gets lots of cool new widgets.
There is alot of good stuff in AT, albeit not perfect and sometimes
obscured by many man years of expedient cruft. Let's not throw the baby
out with bath water just because it's been crying too much. This is an
excellent opportunity to take what has work about AT and move it forward
and deprecate what is not used or forgotten.
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests