On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Tres Seaver <tsea...@palladion.com> wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> Baiju M wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Hanno Schlichting <ha...@hannosch.eu> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 3:56 AM, Baiju M <mba...@zeomega.com> wrote:
>>>>         I would like to get your opinion about this position statement,
>>>> as it involve the wider Zope ecosystem.  However, we tried to be
>>>> diplomatic about other project's relationship with ZTK as we don't
>>>> want to claim anything about others:
>>>> http://wiki.zope.org/bluebream/BlueBreamName
>>> Two things:
>>> - Repoze is a brand name like Zope but not a particular project. BFG
>>> is a web application framework. BFG was certainly never based on Zope
>>> 3. But even the claim that it is based on the ZTK is far fetched. It
>>> depends on zope.component, zope.configuration and their dependencies.
>>> That's similar to Twisted depending on zope.interface or TurboGears
>>> depending on zope.sqlalchemy and transaction. Presenting it as if the
>>> dependency of BFG onto the ZTK is similar in scope to Grok or Zope2 is
>>> misleading.
>>> - Plone isn't a web application framework but a specific application.
>>> Zope 2 is a web application framework. If you want to include Plone
>>> into the graph, you have to put it at a different level than the other
>>> things. And both the dependency on Zope 3 and the ZTK are mediated via
>>> the Zope 2 dependency.
>>> So a 2010 graph should read more like:
>>> Plone
>>> Zope2    Grok    BlueBream    BFG
>>> ZTK
>>> ZCA
>>> Where there's a direct line from BFG to ZCA bypassing the ZTK. In the
>>> 2008 version ZTK would be Zope 3 with BlueBream missing.
>> Thanks for the feedback. I have changed the Repoze to BFG.
>> But the lines are just to indicate that there is some relation.
>> We tried to be very careful when talking about the relation
>> as we don't want to claim anything, at the same time,
>> it doesn't contradict anything in reality:
>> For example:
>> "Over time, other web frameworks, such as Grok / BFG evolved around
>> Zope 3, which primarily utilize certain library packages from Zope 3
>> and don't make use of the Zope 3 application server."
>> In the case of Plone also, it's very true:
>> "Other products, such as Plone also started to make use of the Zope 3
>> component architecture and the accompanied packages"
>> Also we emphasized:
>> "We cannot officially speak for other projects, so you can check their
>> documentation to understand the relationship with ZTK"
>> Sorry, we don't have any plan to show the exact relationship between 
>> projects.
> Channeling Chris here:
> BFG can't truly be said to be a Zope3-derived framework:  it doesn't
> *require* application developers to use the ZCA, altho[ugh it happens to
> use the ZCA in its implementation (primarily as an optimization at this
> point).  Its dependencies have never included more than a handful of
> Zope3 packages (zope.interface, zope.component, zope.configuration, and
> dependencies).
> Its notions of a view is radically different than a Zope3 view, for
> instance:  in BFG, a view is nearly always just a function or other
> callable, and only rarely (primarily in migrated code) a class / factory
> taking context and request and returning a "view object."
> In 2010, *none* of the Zope3 technologies are "required knowlege" for a
> BFG developer:  you can literally write a BFG app which imports
> *nothing* from the zope.* namespace at all (nor ZODB and related
> packages, etc.)

Please read the sentence once again:

"BFG evolved around Zope 3, which primarily utilize certain library
packages from Zope 3 and don't make use of the Zope 3 application

We don't claim anything you said here.  Each words are used very carefully.

Baiju M
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to