Hanno Schlichting wrote: [snip] > The "Zope Framework" as defined as zope.* is far less than Zope2 > requires itself. zope.app.testing, zope.app.component, zope.app.form, > zope.app.publisher and friends are all used and incur a major buy into > the Zope3 Application Server today.
Hm, zope.* in my document is meant to entail zope.app.*, so those aren't a problem. :) It is my hope we can continue weeding out zope.app.* packages, leaving the ZMI behind and moving frameworky bits into pure zope.* packages. Eventually we'll end up with a Zope Framework that won't have zope.app.* stuff, but that's the future. > So Zope2 does have an interest in a maintained Zope3 KGS and release > still. What do you mean by "Zope 3"? Zope 3 the app server or Zope 3 the framework? Zope 3 is an overloaded term and you should use it with caution. A Zope Framework that Zope 2 can't use is useless so I wouldn't worry about the Zope Framework team cutting out packages just like that; if the developers do their job right that won't happen. [snip] > From my Plone perspective I do have even more of an interest in the Zope > 3.5 KGS. In the high-level applications I built, z3c.form, zope.intid > but also z3c.unconfigure and many more packages are often used. Being > able to rely on a KGS of such a wider set of libraries is valuable to me. That's a good point. So we'd need a core + extra KGS, where extra packages that opt in are also included. 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 )