Albertas Agejevas wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 08:32:52AM -0600, Shane Hathaway wrote:
>> Given that definition, Zope Toolkit will start relatively small, since
>> much of Zope 3 does not yet qualify.  However, as people refine
>> packages, the packages will be reconsidered for inclusion in the Zope
>> Toolkit, and the Zope Toolkit will hopefully grow into something similar
>> to what we currently know as Zope 3.
>> Zope 3 can't die; people are relying on it and maintaining it.  The
>> maintainers are doing a rather good job too, IMHO.  The checkins list
>> has been active lately.  We don't have to create any more Zope 3
>> tarballs, but we should keep up the KGS.
>> The Zope Toolkit will be the subset that's good for building
>> applications, web sites, and frameworks.  Zope 3 will be designed only
>> for building applications and web sites.
> +1, this sounds like a good way forward.


It occurred to me that one simple test of a Zope naming scheme is to 
consider what employers will write in job descriptions.  Consider these 

1. "Candidate must be have Zope 3 experience."

2. "Candidate must be experienced with the Zope Toolkit."

#1 is ambiguous.  If I'm highly experienced with Grok or Repoze, doesn't 
that count?  What if I'm a modern Plone developer?  If the HR department 
does the hiring, they are likely to disqualify good candidates.

#2 should allow developers experienced with Grok, Repoze, modern Plone, 
and possibly even Twisted, but does not allow old-school Zope 2 or 
inexperienced Python developers.  This seems much more like what typical 
employers want to express.

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

Reply via email to