Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
I don't see how we need a new vision. This has been the vision
(evolution, not revolution) that I've been carrying out with Five for
the last few years and thanks to a lot of contributions by a large range
of developers, we've been making it work. Can't we just keep going on
the way we've been going then?
In many ways, that's precisely the idea. However, I agree with Jim when
he says that we currently have a Zope 2 wanting to become like Zope 3
and a Zope 3 wanting to get all that what Zope 2 has.
I don't see how that is a "however". This situation is exactly right in
That'll leave us with two Zopes for a while.
Yes, having two Zopes is in my opinion completely unavoidable for the
Zope 3 is "exploding" into several bits and pieces. That is good. The
question is whether one of those (larger) pieces will also be an app
server or whether one app server that evolves just the way we've been
evolving it since Zope 2.8 is enough.
I'm not sure what you mean here. I expect Zope 3 to keep the pieces it
has right now, including the appserver bits. Nobody is proposing we
throw away code, right?
If someone has the time to replace Zope 2's appserver with what's in
Zope 3, then that would be good and we'll see that happen some Zope 2
releases in the future. Calling that Zope 5 is not going to make it
happen any faster.
"explosion", whether Zope 3 is going to be managed as a number of
components or as a single story doesn't matter much for this. Presumably
we'll still have Zope 3 releases that I can run, say, the
documentlibrary on. For the component integrators (but that's mostly the
Zope core developers) things will change. From the developer's
perspective, and the deployer's perspective using Zope not that much
will change - you'll still install Zope 2 or Zope 3. Perhaps the way you
install it is different, but a Zope developer or deployer would
typically still end up installing something that's called Zope.
I think focusing on one app server and a dedicated set of libraries
would be a good alternative to two concurring app servers.
I don't see how else we can get there than by the route we've been
taking: continuous evolution with small steps. Saying we'll have Zope 5
in the future which will include both still means we need to get there.
I don't see how introducing a new name in the mix is going to help
anyone, and I think in fact it will hurt. We make a commitment we'll do
something, but nobody is actually signing up to actually do it in the
Zope3-dev mailing list