On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 10:37 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
> I'd like to get feedback on two possible visions for the future of
> Zope 2 and Zope 3.  
> 1) Our current vision (AFAIK) is that Zope 3 will eventually
>    replace Zope 2
>    - There will be lots of overlap between the Zope 2 and Zope 3
>      lifetimes.  (Zope 2 might be supported more or less
>      forever.)
>    - Eventually, the gap between Zope 2 and will become very small. 
>      requiring a small leap.
>    In this vision, Zope 3 would have to become a lot more like
>    Zope 2, or we would lose features.

> 2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.

>    - Zope 5 will be the application server generally known as Zope.  It
>      will be backward compatible (to the same degree that Zope 2
>      releases are currently backward compatible with previous Zope 2
>      releases) with Zope 2.  Zope 5 will similarly be backward
>      compatible with Zope 3 applications built on top of the current
>      Zope 3 application server.
>      Note that Zope 5 will leverage Zope 3 technologies to allow a
>      variety of configurations, including a Zope 2-like configuration
>      with implicit acquisition and through-the-web development, and a
>      Zope 3-like configuration that looks a lot like the current Zope
>      3 application server.  Maybe, there will be a configuration that
>      allows Zope 2 and Zope 3 applications to be combined to a
>      significant degree.
>    - Zope 3 will explode. :)
>      For many people, Zope 3 is first a collection of technologies
>      that can be assembled into a variety of different applications.
>      It is second a Zope 2-like application server.  I think that
>      these folks aren't really interested in the (Zope 2-like)
>      application server.
>      Zope 3 will continue as a project (or projects) for creating
>      and refining these technologies.  
>      (It would probably make sense for this activity to to have some
>       name other than "Zope".  On some level, the logical name would
>       be "Z" (pronounced "Zed" :).  An argument against "Z" is that 
>       it would be hard to google for, but Google handles such queries
>       quite well and I'd expect that we'd move to the top of Google Z
>       search results fairly quickly.  However, I'll leave naming
>       decisions to experts. ;)
>    Advantages of this vision:
>    - Zope 2 users don't need to leave Zope 2. 
>    - Zope 3 doesn't have to reproduce all Zope 2 features.
>    - There wouldn't be confusion about 2 Zopes.
>    It is important that Zope 5 be backward compatible with both Zope 2
>    and Zope 3, although not necessarily in the same
>    configuration. Many people are building Zope 3 applications today
>    and they should not be penalized.
> Thoughts?

I personally think that one of the great things about what has come out
of Zope 3 development:  other projects can use the technologies without
taking Zope 3 lock stock and barrel.  I'd hate to see Zope 3 get more
girth and loose future traction because it had to be fully backwards
compatible with Zope 2.  For those who wish to slowly migrate to using
Zope 3 technologies without completely rewriting their software,
evolving via Five is a fair approach.  

To quote a blog I'd read earlier today:  Doing little things well is a
step towards doing big things better.

Allowing others to assist in refining the little technologies which make
up Zope 3 can achieve this goal.  I would fear this would be impossible
if the first vision was followed.

Andrew Sawyers
> Jim

Zope3-dev mailing list
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to