Roger Ineichen wrote:
> I'm pretty sure you are not using much zope.* or z3c.* packages
> in your projects as dependency.
A good number. zope.index, zope.component, zope.interface, zope.schema, and so
on. I don't use 78 of them, like anyone who uses Zope 3, but I do use a good
> Your idea is not bad in general, but as a developer which developed
> all projects based on zope packages your idea could become a nightmare.
> Years ago I convienced Stephan Richter to start with a new namespace
> called z3c because we implemented some experimental things like viewlets,
> templates, macros, pagelets etc. I think this is what happens with repoze
> and grok too. Now I think it's time to merge the good patterns back to
> the zope core and replace some old stuff. But we should be carfull with
> break things if possible.
> Radical changes and experimental stuff should allways be optional till
> it's ready, stable and used by a bigger audience. At least it should be
> very good documented for others which have to update thier projects
> if we switch to a new concept.
Sure. We can be careful, grown-up, conservative, and all that. But I'll note
that a) there just really aren't that many people using Zope 3 b) the people
that *are* using Zope 3 by itself are capable of maintaining their own index c)
the people who *aren't* capable of maintaining their own index are mostly using
Zope 2, and that means they're using Zope 3.4 which doesn't really need to
change and c) the time for careful, measured effort was over three years ago.
IMO, to stay relevant, Zope needs a total overhaul.
Martijn's original message was about "being effective". It's hard to be
effective without being relevant. To gather support and development effort from
new people, things need to change drastically.
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -