Thank you for saying this so well.



On Apr 16, 2009, at 12:06 AM, Gary Poster wrote:

> On Apr 15, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
>> Here are a list of things I have seen that you may mean when you say
>> "Zope 3". I'm sure I missed several:
>> 1. Whatever is included in the Zope 3 tgz that you download.
>> 2. All the packages included in the Zope 3 KGS. (Should be the same  
>> as
>> 1, if I understand correctly.)
>> 3. 1 or 2 minus the ZMI.
>> 4. The publisher.
>> 5. A loose set of packages starting with zope.*, zc.* and z3c.*
>> 6. A strictly defined (by the Zope Toolkit KGS) set of packages
>> starting with zope.*, zc.* and z3c.* that is central and common to
>> Zope 3 in the sense of 1 or 2, and also Grok and Zope 2.
>> 7. Technologies that you use when you develop with the packages in 5
>> and 6.
>> I propose that the name Zope 3 applies *only* to 1 and 2. If future
>> versions of 1 or 2 gets released without the ZMI (as discussed in
>> other threads), then of course 1, 2 and 3 is the same.
>> Opinions?
> I've been away on a vacation of sorts, and find myself happy to not
> have been around for this firestorm.
> A few observations.
> - I very much agree with Lennart's observation that the definition of
> "Zope 3" is not clear.
> - It may have been a mistake to use the name "Zope 3", but it is done
> now, and done a *long* time ago.  Trying to outright kill it feels
> like thrashing.
> - Moreover, because *we* don't know what "Zope 3" means, I'm afraid
> users outside viewers are going to easily misinterpret any kind of
> message framed in the terms of "Zope 3's death" or "abandonment" or
> whatever.    How are they supposed to know what it means?
> I was concerned about Tim Hoffman's statement in the long "who wants
> to maintain..." thread: "It seems from all the discussion of late that
> we might of chosen a architectural dead end  (though I don't think
> so)." We're not declaring the Zope 3 libraries (toolkit, whatever,
> bah) a dead end; far from it.  But how easy it is to make a sound bite
> from this discussion into basically that message? "Zope 3:
> architectural dead end."  I don't care for that, myself, nor do I find
> it accurate.
> This message seems like a reasonable start to me:  "Zope 3 has become
> focused on supporting frameworks and applications, rather than trying
> to be one itself.  It is now called the Zope Toolkit.  Parts of it are
> used by Zope 2, Plone, Grok, Repoze.bfg, and by many other different
> applications and frameworks."
> That message implies two things to me.
> First, to start with, this is just a rename.  Zope 3, as defined by
> the KGS, becomes the Zope Toolkit.
> Second, the "Zope Toolkit" is about supporting other frameworks.  That
> means that it is reasonable to expect that the packages and the parts
> of packages that were about the ZMI will quite possibly die a typical
> open source death of not enough people caring anymore.
> I don't think trying to guess which parts or packages will die is a
> particularly useful exercise.  The community will support what the
> community usual.  This is open source.  You're gambling
> that enough other people will be there with you to make it worthwhile,
> and you may be required to step up with money or talent  or energy to
> make that happen.
> So, again, in sum, I propose that this discussion should simply be
> reduced to a rename to start with: Zope 3, as defined by the KGS ->
> Zope Toolkit.  The software switch that this name change implies has
> started quite some time ago, with the eggification, and will continue
> in its natural and usual open-source course.
> Gary
> _______________________________________________
> Zope-Dev maillist  -
> **  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
> (Related lists -
> )

Jim Fulton
Zope Corporation

Zope-Dev maillist  -
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to