Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
>> we don't really want to ship all of with Zope 2. is
>> supposed to be the Zope 3 application server. It shouldn't be included
>> in Zope 2, especially since it requires twisted and such.
> I'm worried about this approach, as it stops the Five project from
> exposing more Zope 3 functionality into Zope 2 directly, instead having
> to wait for a new release of Zope 2 that includes the missing bits.

That's why I want to make sure that we include as much of in
Zope 2. But I'm just one man so I tried to focus on current usage. I'm
sure we all want to use as much as possible from Zope 3 in our Zope 2
projects in the future, but we have to draw the line for this release.
The freeze is 3 weeks away.

I'm aware that we might not get it all done for Zope 2.10. That's ok, we
can phase out Zope 2's usage over a longer time.

> I'd therefore recommend an approach that includes as much of
> into Zope 2 as is possible, while leaving out the obvious bits that
> shouldn't be there, like Twisted.

Then what's the point of at all? You're almost sounding like
you want to move everything in zope.* to

I think in the past we didn't really understand what was. We
just put everything in there. That didn't work. The twisted thing is
just the biggest symptom. A much different, perhaps more subtle symptom
is the fact that reusing stuff from is harder than reusing
stuff that's independent of it. The fact that Zope 2 ships with
is not because it wants to but because it needs to. All the things that
*should* be reusable are tucked away there.

If we continue to put everything in the bag, we won't be able
to release more technology independently. I remember that you yourself
suggested to put widgets into a more accessible and reusable location.
I'm suggesting the same thing for all that other Zope 3 technology. Zope
2 is just the biggest motivator.

Zope-Dev maillist  -
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to