-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Mark Hammond wrote:
>> Zope3 has never supported PAS and I doubt it ever well.
> That is a shame - the thread I referred to shows that Jim was working on
> exactly that - it's a shame that never came to fruition (and indeed, its not
> clear why that attempt failed - should PAS have been fixed to make that
> transition possible?)
>> Since Zope3 is not a successor to Zope2 but a
>> completely different thing I do not think this is problematic.
> That too seems a shame to me. So if I found myself with an investment in
> Zope2 but was looking to the future, Zope3 will not even *attempt* to
> provide a smoother path for me than, say, moving to django or another
> alternative framework?
> I guess the fact the first 4 letters of "zope2" and "zope3" being the same
> did imply some sense of continuation in at least *some* things...
The original intent was to allow for transparent migration: the end
result has been that Zope2 *uses* selected bits of Zope3, with no intent
(going forward) that Zope2 will "wither away." Rather, we are
gradually replacing various bits of Z2, where appropriate, with the Z3
The entire debate here is about whether PAU is really an appropriate
replacement for PAS, given that it doesn't support some use cases out of
the box, and has a smaller set of available plugins.
> (or, as usual, I may be missing something that is obvious to those closer to
> the metal than me as a somewhat external observer)
I wouldn't call the current state obvious. ;)
Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -