On 12/29/09 17:00 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> On 12/29/09 16:25 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>> Earlier this year we decided to refocus our efforts on the ZTK, a
>>> leaner, meaner Zope 3 with a different focus, which has code that we
>>> really use, no UI, and with cleaner dependencies.
>> I feel a disconnect here. As I see it the ZTK is not a 'leaner, meaner
>> Zope 3'. Zope 3 is a modular application framework, while the ZTK is a
>> small framework that can be used to build applications or applications
>> frameworks. ZTK has no history since it never existed before (and still
>> is only vapourware since it has no releases nor a release manager), so
>> it does not have any backwards compatibility to worry about.
> The sense of irony of you feeling a disconnect is rather strong here. I
> was the one who proposed the ZTK in the first place, remember?
>> It seems that you want to have a 'ZTK+' which aims to be backwards
>> compatible with Zope 3 but is somehow not Zope 3 itself. That is
>> something that not everybody appears to be interested in judging by the
>> lack of progress on Zope 3 itself, but if you want to pursue that I do
>> not see any reason for you not to do that. But it should separate from
>> the ZTK.
> I'm glad the message of what the ZTK is that I tried to spread so hard
> has arrived so well.
> The ZTK wants to reduce responsibilities. One of the responsibilities
> you gain when you want to reduce responsibilities is to do this responsibly.
You are ignoring my point though: why should the ZTK have to be burdened
with trying to be backwards compatible with something that it never was?
Why are you insisting on putting Zope3 in it?
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -