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

Reply via email to