Am 02.03.2006 um 14:13 schrieb Rocky Burt:

On Tue, 2006-28-02 at 13:21 +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
I would vote for spelling out Zed (which would also be a little easier to google but might create trademark problems). The namespace package
could either be 'z' or 'zed'.

Then again, I really should take Jim's side and stay out of naming

Let's please not have a naming discussion again. I think renaming Zope 3 is really bad marketing myself and naming discussions mostly a waste of

As I sit here spending sooo much time reading this thread, I've finally
decided its time to throw in my own naive point of view as an ex-J2EE
developer and a Zope 2 developer that generally builds applications on
top of Zope2/CMF/Plone.

Thanks Rocky encouraged me to not stay out of this discussion any longer :-)

My perspective is from someone who has decided early on (more than two years ago) to start using zope3 technics and approaches in Zope2 land. I now have a bigger project under my belt, which is probably one of the biggest zope2/five installations, a portal with 300 subsites in one instance. But that's actually not the main point. What I face is the interaction with former contractors of this customer, who we should explain the system, the technology and also sometimes the history of this zope island. And this is quite a difficult expirience, at least for me.

We started this with the goal to transform this to a pure zope3 application sometime, when zope3 the technology and zope3 the main developer community is ready. So we had a goal, if we will succeed is dependant on much more than pure technology. And this is my view, which are only a list of opinions. I hope I can come to a conclusion in the end.

- Five is a migration path to "something". For us it was always the hope that this something is something different than the current Zope2. So we accepted that there are quirks, in the believe, that this can be removed if a "cleaner" ground can be used.

- Adopting Five and the z3 stuff as an additional resource for Zope2 and keep going with z2 is dangerous. My head starts swirling if I imagine about the enhancement of AT with z3 technics, it becomes more and more complex, more and more abstractions need to be understood, dependancy-lists become longer and longer. The sheer amount of source code is huge.

- The naming discussion leads to the direction to have "Zed" something like an additional library which can be used with Zope2. This hints the usage as an additional layer. We will see products, which are not pure z3 accessable via Five, but which are using both and create a new kind of product style, without the intention to move this to a pure z3 solution.

- If I understand Jim right, he asks, if the z3 developer should abandon the development of the z3 application server and concentrate more on the restructuring of the z2 application server. Given the potential support which can be leveraged if the big z2-communities (CPS and Plone seem to be the only ones) can be involved, that sounds reasonable. I fear that it would be nevertheless quite hard, and that there is not really a big success at least not such a big success, as the current clean reimplementation of zope3.

- My obersvation from the various discussions here is, that the people who are using z3 are using it quite differently, much more creative. This is part of the success to leave the zope-island. And this leads in some way to uncertainties for the "traditional" z2 developer. On the one side there is the freedom to replace the main template engine, but this makes it more difficult for a newcomer to a project.

- Similar to this theme ,"leaving the island", is the explosion of components we will see. The Zope community has already identified this and the great packing efforts are underway. Nevertheless it will be more difficult to understand all these different components, they are not as approachable as the current products. There will be bigger components or more application like packages, but the freedom for the developer also means that the components will be more varied, using different concepts, will not fit as tightly together as the current line of CMF/CPS/Plone products. I have the feeling that this is sometimes missed in the ongoing discussions. We try to find the one and only solution, where on the other side we opened up the framework to use quite different solutions.

Ok, what's my conclusion. I think a repackaging is good and perhaps also the building of bigger mega-packages. But the z2 community needs to have a goal to evolve to and this needs to be better, and needs to have features which encourage them to adpopt the new plattform. And I hope that this plattform is a better z3 application server, much in the same spirit as the current z3 framework is a better z2 framework. And z2 developers should face, that they need to rethink and rewrite some of their products.

Thanks, if you read such far, I hope this does not sound to pathetic, if so it isn't meant so.

With regards,


Zope3-dev mailing list

Reply via email to