Geoff Davis wrote:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 10:38:03 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:

I think that the idea of giving Zed its own, distinct identity is great. Zope 3 is a _huge_ overhaul and it needs to be obvious to the world that
it is dramatically better than crufty old Zope 2.  Zope 3 then becomes the
Zed application server; Zope 2 is getting Zed retrofits via Five, and the
two will eventually converge into Zope 5 (or Zope 2.27 or whatever).
Ooops.  OK I guess I was clear as mud. :)  My idea for "Z", pronounced "zed"
or whatever the naming gods decide is that it was *not* an app server.
It is an un-app-server. :)  A collection of technologies that are useful
by themselves, to support an app server and useful to build non-app-server
applications, web or otherwise.

No, I think I understood you. I was being sloppy in my use of language. I should have said something more like "Zope 3 then becomes an application
server built around the Zed library".

Good clarification.

I think that Z3 is better than Z2 in a lot of ways.  I also think that
Z2 is more mature and complete.  I really want us to combine those efforts.
I think we've achieved enough and learned enough with Zope 3 that we
can now bring that to bear and make Zope 2 better, refactoring the cruft
away and applying the lessons we've learned with Zope 3.  (Note that Zope 3
is not crust free.)  I don't really care what this thing ends up being called,
except that it *must* be called Zope.

Yes, I agree.  "Zope" is the app server.  I think that is consistent with
the past use of the brand.


This paragraph makes me think I was clear. Yes, we need to follow Ian Bicking's
advice and release our technology in bite-sized chunks.  I'm hopeful that the
packaging efforts underway will lead to more of that.

Yes, and the use of the new name "Z" or "Zed" is a way to emphasize that
the Zed library is NOT a big, monolithic app server; rather, it's
something new and cool.

I think this brings up an interesting paradox in the discussion. We want Zope to continue being the name of an app server. But we also want the CA to be perceived as usable outside of an app server. Outside of Zope, even.

Thus, we are using the same name used to convey:

  "It *is* an app server!"
  "It's *not* an app server!"

I think this might be a contradiction and might be worth discussing.

People have it set in their brain that Zope is a monolithic web application server. Hard to dispel that meme.


Zope3-dev mailing list

Reply via email to