Jim Fulton wrote:
> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
>> Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at:
>> http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository
> I love this idea!


> But I think it's still a bit too early to pursue it.

Perhaps so. Other people have given me that impression too, so there
might be some truth in it.

> In the next release cycle, I want to, finally, revisit what Zope 3 itself
> should be, especially the idea of "core".  A couple of years ago, in the
> Zope 3 community, we debated what should be in "the core" of Zope 3. At the
> time. I fealt that that such a debate would be too much of a distraction.
> Now (well, after the December release :), I think it's time to 
> revisit what the core of Zope 3 is and how we manage the repository. 
> There has been a trend to manage important components separately and 
> link them in. I see this trend continuing. The advent of eggs and 
> continuing maturation of zpkg and testing technology will accelerate
> this trend, IMO.

I agree.

> I think that in the future, there may be a much smaller core Zope 3
> project that represents the "object filing system" (zope.ofs? :).
> This core project may be a client of a collection of much smaller
> projects, such as zope.interface, zope.component. etc.. If that
> vision comes to pass, Zope 2 will no longer contain the Zope 3 core,
> but they will both share a large number of components which neither
> of them "contain". Obviously, this would radically change the nature
> of this debate.

Maybe not so. I think the essential vibe of the proposal remains: we
want to converge on a technical level. And, as it has been expressed
through my prosopal, it is my belief that this can be best achieved in
one sandbox, not two.

The following paragraph is a clear statement of yours on priorities,
which I'll take as an edict. As my proposal points out, I set priorities
a bit differently, but nonetheless I want to narrow the gap between Zope
2 and Zope 3 as soon as possible, too.

> On the topic of leveraging Zope 2 developers for Zope 3, I'd first
> like to leverage more Zope 2 developers for Zope 2. :) I'd like to
> see people focussing more effort on the Zope 3 in Zope 2 work and
> narrow the gap between Zope 2 and Zope 3. I'm thrilled with the
> effort you and others have put in and am very hopeful that the
> Goldegg initiative will focus more effort here, as it
> already has. Some projects that I'd really like to see worked on
> soon:
> - Use a common publisher framework


> - Use a common security framework

+1, though that'll be hard... I'll probably have to pass on this one.

> - Share common ZPT implementations


> I'd love to participate in some sprints on these.

Me too.

> After these things are done, and after we've had a chance to revisit
> the Zope 3 software organization, would be a good time to revisit how
> the Zope application server efforts should be managed.

Sounds like a good idea. I'll also soon bring in a proposal dealing with
some minor issues that allow us to close many smaller gaps. Like someone
in this huge thread suggested (can't remember who), there won't be much
left of Zope 2 than Zope2, OFS, AccessControl, Acquisition, ZPublisher
and Products...

> I really want to reunite the Zope 2 and Zope 3 comunities.  I'd be
> happy if, by the end of 2006 we could retire the Zope 3 lists and
> merge the discussions back into the main zope lists.


> P.S. Wow, what a huge number of messages in a day. :)

Tell me about it :).

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

Reply via email to