Tres Seaver wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> Tres Seaver wrote:
>> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>>> The Plone 3.x series will stay on Python 2.4 for a long time yet, so
>>> this would be very disappointing. I can understand it if the maintenance
>>> burden becomes large, or if there are compelling features of 2.5/2.6
>>> that we really want to make use of. The tgz issue seems like a pretty
>>> weak reason, though, especially since there are workarounds.
>> "Stability or goodies, pick one".  If you can't upgrade to a newer
>> Python / Zope, you can't use the ZTK, which *cannot* be constrained by
>> backwared compatiblity with pre-2.12 Zope versions:  those versions are
>> stuck with using the Zope 3.3 / 3.4 trees on which they were originally
>> based, just as they are stuck with Python 2.4.
> Thinking further on this:  there is actually not much "shiny" about the
> ZTK:  it is going to be equivalent to a cut-down, dependency-stripped,
> bbb-cruft-sanded version of the packages already shipping with Zope
> 2.10.x / 2.11.x.  Until Plone quits using Zope2 altogether (likely
> never, AFAIK) Plone has no direct interest in the ZTK, which is just a
> layer of the Zope2 stack from Plone's perspective.

In practice, though, people are using packages from newer Zope releases 
in third party products, and, possibly, in Plone core.

One example is z3c.form, which requires you to upgrade zope.i18n and 
zope.component That works fine, FWIW. :)


Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who
want to work with Plone. See

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

Reply via email to