Stefane Fermigier wrote:
Geoff Davis wrote:
I think that the idea of giving Zed its own, distinct identity is great..
I think it is stupid.
We (Zope Corp + the Zope Community) have spent 8 years building the Zope
brand, and you want to restart from scratch ?
Hehe, poor Geoff. :)
In the past, the Zope community hasn't made it a *strategic* goal to
play nice with other Python projects. In the past, the Zope community
hasn't made it a goal to be a sea of autonomous components. Its goal
has been: top-to-bottom app server.
We now have (I think!) said those goals are now in scope. Those goals
are currently being met using the same name as the assembly. Trying to
achieve the goals of the components, using the same word as the
assembly, might not be the best way to achieve those goals.
The comments I got on my pro-Zope weblog post showed that, if we *do*
care about these new goals, we should consider whether the name is a
barrier *for the components*.
Alternatively, we could say: "The components should only be used in the
Zope application server." Perhaps that's the goal.
I think Geoff's core point could be met by keeping the word "Zope" for
the app server. I think Geoff's deeper point was to rethink the word
used for the CA, which actually doesn't want to be thought of us an app
Zope3-dev mailing list