Jim Fulton wrote: > 2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
+1 as already discussed at PyCON. > - 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. ;) I would vote for spelling out Zed (which would also be a little easier to google but might create trademark problems). The namespace package could either be 'z' or 'zed'. Then again, I really should take Jim's side and stay out of naming decisions. > 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. I'll note that while Zope will remain to be the application server (in its Zope 5 incarnation), you should and would still be able to create WSGI-capable object-publishing applications with the Zed pieces fairly easily, for example when you don't need the full-blown Zope experience. I will also note that just because Zope 2 won't die, it doesn't mean we shouldn't clean it up. Eventually, Zope should mostly be reusing things from Zed. A Zope distribution would include a fair number of Zed eggs and the Zope-specific things should live under the 'Zope2' namespace package. Fortunately we're already starting with cleaning up some of the top-level packages (zLOG, TAL, StructuredText) in Zope 2.10. Philipp _______________________________________________ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3firstname.lastname@example.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com