On Feb 28, 2006, at 9:30 AM, Benji York wrote:

Martijn Faassen wrote:
So, my proposal would be to tone down the vision to what we have already: a co-evolving Zope 3 and Zope 2, with Zope 2 following and Zope 3 leading (or Zope 2 driving Zope 3 forward, however you want to see it). No renaming necessary. No change of course necessary. Zope 2 can stick to Zope 2 features as long as necessary so there's no rush to replicate Zope 2 functionality in Zope 3 any time soon. At the same time, Zope 2 requirements can drive the evolution of Zope 3.

An emphatic +1.

Heh, in retrospect, my "I guess we should go with plan 2" post comes off a bit like Marc Antony's speech in Julius Caesar:

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him;
The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interréd with their bones,
So let it be with Caesar.

...Then Antony goes on to praise Caesar. :-)

I'm also +1 on Martijn's approach: let's keep Zope 3 around, and stay the course.

Also,

On Feb 28, 2006, at 10:06 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
I think focusing on one app server and a dedicated set of libraries
would be a good alternative to two concurring app servers.

...if the single app server is based on acquisition, __bobo_traverse__ and friends, objectValues and friends, ZCatalog, and so on, I'd rather have two, thanks: at least I can have one I like.

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

Reply via email to