Jeff Shell wrote:
Yes. There's a dominant Zope name out there. It's not the Component
Architecture nor is it built on it. It's starting to use it, but it's
not based on it. However, since the project that Zope 3 [AS] came out
of is still identified in the Wiki as the 'Component Architecture'
project, maybe the '3' can be dropped for that one. But not for
application server:
That dominant Zope, aka Zope 2, is also an application server. So
there really needs to be a separate definition. This was discussed
here a couple of months ago when people were enamored with the concept
of totally different names or code names or release names, which I was
against.
Zope 3 is Zope. But Zope 3 is Not Zope. Zope 3 has *some* degree of
buzz around it, more than something with a new name. I still believe
that the '3' has meaning, at least for now. Maybe it can disappear
over time.
[snip]
Caveats up front:
1) I know I don't have much useful to say, but I will anyway. :^)
2) I wholeheartedly endorse the discussion Jim has prompted. He is
making some observations that are getting lost in the discussion about
his proposed solutions, IMO.
3) I think the observations you just made are similar to his observations.
I think Jim's point can be summarized in a famous quote from the ancient
philosopher Ric Flair: "If you wanna be the man, you gotta beat that
man." If you want call yourself Zope, what expectations do you need to
meet for what audience?
Alan and Alex brought up a nice discussion once about Plone having a
middle class. Zope used to have a middle class, but Zope 3 has left
that group in a "to be determined later" status. Which is odd, as
creation of a middle class was what really differentiated Zope. Now we
have to compete on very similar terms to other projects (and we're
getting crushed on the mindshare.)
So if you're going to call yourself Zope, you probably have to say "we
love our middle class". If you don't, the odds are stacked against you,
as you have to appeal to people that have a negative connotation of "Zope".
For the most part, Zope 3's primary uptake is the CA. I would be
surprised if more than 10 installs in the world have end-users using
Rotterdam. I would also be surprised if there are more than 20 people
worldwide in Zope 3's "middle class". Instead, Zope 3 components get
used by Zope 3 component developers to build completely new finished
applications atop the CA. Or the components get used in Zope 2 or
non-Zope systems.
On the latter point, I think Zope 3's future is in granularity. Others
have said this too. Zope's battle-hardened bite-sized chunks do things
other projects simply don't contemplate.
But let's face it...as long as those chunks wear the name "Zope", half
of the other projects will never consider it. "It's a competitor", "I
tried Zope and hated it", "I don't like Python databases", "Don't make
me march under your flag", and other feelings that, while things have
changed in reality, are true in perception.
On to a concrete proposal, which I realize is just another log on the fire:
1) Audience==Middle class: Keep the name Zope to apply to the
application server and the middle class. Basically, Zope is the assembly.
2) Audience==Python: Pick a new name for the top-level package of
components. For example: "zed3" for the naming. E.g.
zed3.pagetemplates. (Examples: SchoolTool, Tiks, Oxfam America via
Enfold, etc.) Don't heavily brand zed3.
Stated differently: brand the sea of components different than the
assembly into an app server.
Market the first at the people that actually liked Zope. Market the
second at the people that didn't like Zope. Over time, make the first
built out of the second.
If you're in the "change Zope 3 and I'll leave" camp, you're probably
most interested in the components. You're probably not interested in
deploying end-user application server deployments. You're probably not
interested in the middle class. None of Zope 2 would ever make it into
the zed3.* package space. So nothing to fear there.
This tries to solve the branding problem mentioned of "introducing one
more name". For people interested in the app server, for the middle
class and the business decision maker, there is no change: it's Zope 2
blending with/into Zope 3.
For people interested in the components...let's face it, the word "Zope"
would have been a dead-letter anyway. For *that* audience only, there
is a new word involved. People who detested Zope (check comments my
weblog post for evidence thereof, nice to know Satan commissioned Zope)
are *really* unlikely to return to the word "Zope".
--Paul
_______________________________________________
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
