On 5 July 2011 10:18, Hanno Schlichting <ha...@hannosch.eu> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Martin Aspeli <optilude+li...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I would've thought it would also be possible for those who rely on this
> to
> > maintain the relevant eggs as optional installations against Zope 2.x,
> no?
> The ZMI is not a package - we don't have a split into zope and
> zope.app in Zope2. Once there's no more ZMI, Products.PageTemplates
> stops using RestrictedPython and the OFS base classes don't inherit
> from Acquisition.Implicit anymore, it'll be really hard to keep the
> legacy development approach working.

I think it might be useful to spell out the reasons behind this (here, or
better yet, somewhere more permanent like zope.org). I can imagine people
reading this and wondering why it's a good idea, especially those who have
an investment in the existing technologies.

> Someone might try, but I think it's not a wise decision to spent any
> resources that way. At some point every application written in the
> legacy style has to be rewritten. I think it would be a better use of
> resources for anyone to start doing that than maintaining a dead-end.

This is a pretty sweeping statement that I think could cause a lot of
nervousness. It might be the right thing in many ways, but we need to at
least provide a bit more context. If you're a business that's invested
dozens of person-years into a product, the prospect of rewriting could seem
fairly daunting. At least we, as the Zope 2 community, need to set out the
case for change and some kind of idea of timing and transition path, even if
that means in some cases getting to a "long term maintenance" release and in
other cases evolving away from certain technologies whilst being confident
to keep using others.

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