On 3/3/09 2:42 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> And you think it's all due to the brand...
> Yes!  Someone who *wants* to use basic ZCML directives but doesn't want
> zope.security, zope.location, zope.publisher, zope.traversing, zope.i18n, and
> pytz can *already* use repoze.zcml; the only thing they don't get here is the 
> brand.

If we change the word "brand" to "megaframework", things might become 

Grok makes framework decisions based on getting value from the Zope 3 
platform. "So what if our configuration language sucks in zope.location 
and pytz, we needed it anyway in our megaframework!"  This view likely 
represents the (indeterminately sized) population of Zope insiders.

Repoze doesn't have fidelity to the Zope 3 megaframework as its goal. 
"I asked for a configuration parser and you sucked in a security model, 
WTF!!"  As such, Repoze probably wants something more like 
Zope-the-library than Zope-the-megaframework.  This view likely 
represents the (indeterminately sized) population of Zope skeptics.

Which group wins when there's a tie in the Zope Framework?  It will be 
interesting to see.

I think there's also a point about the "brand" related to how diluted 
the word "Zope" has become, but that is a second point to the 
megaframework/platform discussion.


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