Chris McDonough wrote: [snip]
I assume these caveats are spelled out here because Z3 developers don't want to slow down Z3 development to test/maintain Z2 compatibility. I know a lot about Z2 code, but I know very little about Z3 code. I'd like that to change, but it's likely that I'll just not have the bandwidth to make sure Z3-inside-Z2 works. If that just means I can't use Z3 features but nothing else breaks, it's probably fine, but if Z3 integration actively breaks Z2, it's likely I'll just need for some extended period of time to continue to use and maintain 2.7.
Several of us *do* have the bandwidth to make sure Zope 3 in Zope 2 works, as we're actively using it.
Five has been from the start a project that explicitly tried to interfere with both Zope 2 and Zope 3 as little as possible. If you don't use the Zope 3 features in Zope 2, they're just not there.
It'd be great if active Z3 developers could actually help make new releases of Z2 once Five is integrated but the above makes it sound like a "we'll throw it over the wall and you make it work" sort of thing. If it's the latter, maybe as devil's advocate, I need to ask what the point is here?
I think there's a need for active Five developers who do this. Luckily such a group of us exists. We'll make sure Zope 3 in Zope 2 works, Zope 2 developers just focus on Zope 2, and Zope 3 developers focus on Zope 2. We'll try to keep out of your hair as much as possible, and you stay out of our hair, and we'll all cooperate just fine. We've been doing this for over half a year already, after all.
As the systems start to merge more in the future, this will get more complicated. But again, Five has been designed to minimize this problem, by carefully being minimally invasive in its Zope 2 integration. We're already using Five with large, complicated systems such as Plone, CPS and Silva, so I think we've been successful.
It appears there is an assumption that merging Z2 and Z3 code within Z2 itself is an unmitigated good thing, but IMHO, each is complicated enough in their own right that I'd personally prefer to be dealing with one or the other at any given time and not both. This isn't exactly idle whining either, I need to do this when I maintain Z4I code, and it's definitely not a walk in the park; it's moderately difficult to do and also difficult find people who have the skills to help too.
Does anyone else share this skepticism or am I about to get shouted down? ;-)
I've already done all this worrying for you and did the right thing with Five, so you're just ignorant. ;)
This is a distribution deal more than an integration deal. We're packaging stuff together so we can start using Five more in our projects, and deploy it a lot more easily.
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 )
