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  -

See for bug reports and feature requests

Reply via email to