On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 21:43:10 -0500 Chris McDonough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think packaging efforts are really the key to being able > to tell a story like this. The efforts happen to be > couched in a process of converting z3 packages into > eggs, but really the process of identifying dependencies > and eliminating the silly ones is the valuable work > here, and it seems to be getting done by embracing egg > packaging, which is really wonderful. One we have > well-factored modules that are packaged and maintained > independently, all sorts of things like the "AS" vs. > "CA" you mention or a Zope 3 core that is more like > "zope.bobo", or a Zope that combines both z3 and z2 in > various ways becomes a lot more possible.
From a marketing or "user convenience" perspective, labels like the ones proposed remain useful, however. Personally, I think they're fine. I'm not sure I wouldn't ditch the "3" though, and just call it "Zope CA"/"Zope AS" or even "Zope Component Architecture" and "Zope Application Server" -- would there actually be any ambiguity? Debian Linux packages are also very fine-grained, but it's very useful to define "abstract packages" that do nothing but depend on a lot of desired packages. I'm pretty sure, for example, that there's a "kde" package that sucks in the entire KDE environment (I'd actually have to poke around a bit to verify that -- but it doesn't matter, the pattern is used a lot in Debian). IOW, coarse structure is good, even if you have the power to define things more finely. -- Terry Hancock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com _______________________________________________ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3firstname.lastname@example.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com