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 - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -