On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 00:42:14 -0000, Jeff Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Personally, I still find it hard to know where the line goes between the ZMI and my own UI code, if I should be extending the ZMI or replacing it. Perhaps because I'm tainted by Zope 2's idea of the ZMI, though.

Personally, I think it's insane that Zope 3 still has TTW scripts and templates enabled by default. :-)

Personally, I think that Zope 3-the-CA would be the useful in a Zope 2 + Five context, at the very least, which is where a lot of interest will continue to come for.

Without understanding the detailed implications of your vision, I must say it's quite attractive. Perhaps the difference between the AS and the Suite may be hard to explain and keep clean, though - I'm really not sure.

But less-is-more is a good concept when it comes to frameworks like the Z3 CA. The less stuff I have to learn and understand that's not relevant to me (e.g. as a Five-focused developer, or as someone with lower requirements) the better. Should be easier to document it in these stages, too... And I like having distinct names for the different parts of that puzzle.


We've been through a lot lately. You know it, I know it. Zope has a
reputation. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad. This has affected
Zope 3, since Zope 3 is very much "not Zope 2". But it's affecting
Zope 2 as well, as Jim has brought to our attention. Zope 3 is Mature.
Zope 3 sounds like Zope 2+1. Zope 2 and Zope 3 have very different
concepts. Zope 3 has restricted its audience, for now, to developers;
while Zope 2 is appealing to many different kinds of end users and
programmer types. Five offers a bridge so that Zope 3 as a library may
be used in Zope 2, and the Zope 2 core has started making use of some
Zope 3 concepts.

But it's obvious we have a name problem. Even within Zope 3, there's a
name problem, between "Zope 3 as Application Server" and "Zope 3 as
cool collection of packages".

Today, I wrote a much longer message in response to the "Two Visions"
thread. But I was in a bit of a bad mood, having spent many hours
trying to set up a test harness to test one little thing in my own
code that was causing problems - a "one little thing" that depended on
quite a few components being set up, and it was painful. And I'm still
not done. And I realized, as I stewed away, that I like Zope 3 as an
Application Server... But I'd like it with less. And this option
hasn't been proffered, so far as I can tell. It seems like Jim's
Vision might be two options - "zope as library" and "big zope
application server with all of the object file system and probably
through the web stuff and so on and so on and would be largely
compatible with both Zope 2 and Zope 3 as they stand today."

Personally, I'd love to have the first option. I also, personally,
don't care if I have the second option, but I recognize the need or
desire for it, and the desire to get out the message that Zope 2 and
the applications on it actually do have a future even though they may
not have a future with Zope 3 as Zope 3 is currently known.

I'd like a third option: the Zope 3 Application Server as it is right
now, but with less. No Rotterdam skin, perhaps no ZMI. No content
objects at all, except maybe for some example file and image objects
to show how to do BLOBs. It would still be ZODB based. It would still
be ILocation based. zope.app.container would be prominent, and
zope.app.folder would not be a distraction. It's the basis for
building applications like Schoolbell/Schooltool, custom content
management, itinerary managers, knowledge bases, whatever. Catalog,
local sites/utilities, all still there. But without the distraction of
"should I support the ZMI? use it as my user interface?" "should I use
the TTW page templates?". "IFolder and IContainer... What is the
difference and which should I use? Which should be my base class"
(because at Bottlerocket, we chose Folder when we shouldn't have, we
found out much later). Maybe that stuff would still be in the library.
Maybe it would still be available as a 'mkzopeinstance' option. But
the Zope 3 Application Server would probably work best if it promoted
custom development via persistent objects, views, and custom skins, as
the default way of working with it. It's easier to write documentation
for, it could be easy to write mkzopeinstance commands for (to
generate a basic starting point with skeleton code and a site.zcml
setup that loads the custom skin). There's not this other User
Interface and other objects providing a distraction. "I'm making a
wiki. How does SQL Script apply? I18N File?".

And then I thought about Taligent, for some reason. I'm not going into
the history of the company/project, whose products never really made
it out into the light of day. But at some point, they broke their
product (which was to be a new "object oriented operating system") out
into a small set of distinct offerings: TalOS (Taligent Object
Services), TalAE (Taligent Application Environment), and so on. And I
thought about doing this for Zope, and came up with the following:

- Zope 3 CA: The Zope Component Architecture. Core services. Would
  include zope.publisher and most other current top level zope.* things.
Usable as a library, as a publisher for other environments, perhaps as a
  simple standalone server. Easy to deploy against WSGI, Paste.deploy,

- Zope 3 AS: The Zope 3 Application Server. A Zope 3 CA stack using the
ZODB, ILocation, and most of the zope.app services but without any content
  objects. Perhaps only an application server configuration skin (process
management) but no ZMI. Maybe have the current configuration installable as
  an option.

- Zope Suite (or Zope Web or Zope DE): This is the full "application server" perhaps Jim is envisioning. A comprehensive web based user interface, based
  on features (and implementations) of both Zope 2 and Zope 3 application
  servers and offerings.

We don't need a hundred different "editions" like Microsoft. Nor do we
need a hundred different acronyms like Java development seems to have.
I think we could boil things down to these three offerings, while
sticking with the current timed release plan as well. And it would
finally make a useful and usable "Zope Without Zope" downloadable
option available as Zope 3 CA.

I can envision the web site now, and may mock a simple and sexy text
based one up later this evening. We could even get it up now
(zopesuite.org anybody?).

- Zope 3 CA: Provides the core elements and concepts for building and
  sustaining loosely coupled Python programs, as well as the fundamental
  object publishing toolkit that's been powering Zope based web sites
  since 1996 (1995?). [download now | more information]

- Zope 3 AS: The Zope 3 Application Server. A new approach to Zope web sites
  built entirely on the Zope 3 Component Architecture and Zope Object
  Database. A full stack for developing custom web sites and applications
using only Python and your imagination. [download Zope 3.2 now | more info ]

- Zope Suite: Built on Zope 2 and leveraging elements of the Zope 3 CA and
  Zope 3 AS, the Zope Suite provides a robust and mature web development
environment that is in place already behind many web sites and applications
  worldwide. [download zope 2.9 now | more info | roadmap ]


I think this keeps Zope 3 as we know it alive, keeps the Zope brand
intact, and offers a future for Zope 2 and similar caliber desires for
a Big App Server while not interfering with the more "pure" and simple
concepts that makes Zope 3 appealing for developers like me.

Jeff Shell


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

Reply via email to