-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Jim Fulton wrote:
> Thanks for posting this. (Thank you too Chris for starting the Zope 4
> thread.) Despite the inevitable bike shedding, I think this is a
> discussion worth having.
> Here are my opinions, which build on the arguments you gave, even
> though I disagree with some of your conclusions.
> 1. I hate "Zope Classic". It was a mistake for Coke and I think it
> would be a mistake for us too. :)
> 2. I think Zope 3 the application should die. It should go the way of
> New Coke.
> 3. I think the word "Zope" should refer to both the application
> currently called Zope 2 and the Zope ecosystem, depending on context,
> although I'm also fine with coming up with another name as long as it
> doesn't imply obsolescence. :)
Amen to all of that.
WRT the "Framework" name: "framework" is a misleading name for the
collection of packages salvaged from the "new Coke" effort: it is
actually a *bunch* of frameworks, in the classic software engineering
sense, along with some "pure" libraries.
The notional "Zope Framwork" is alos *not* what other Python web
developers mean when they say "web framework": Grok and BFG fit that
meaning. Zope2 is really an "app server" / "pluggable application",
rather than a "web framework".
Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tsea...@palladion.com
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 -