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.
Thanks. 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 alternatives: 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. Shane _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )