On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 19:39:54 -0000, Lennart Regebro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
1. Zope2 uses more and more of Zope3s technologies. Anything that can
be merged gets merged. That means security, pagetemplates and the
publisher, and maybe more. Basically, we want to strip Zope2 as much
as possible, until Zope2 basically runs "on top" of Zope3. This also
includes making sure that a Zope3 product can continue to run on
Zope3, even when Zope2 also runs there. I.e, we get to a situation,
where you can run Zope3 products unmodified in Zope2.
2. Zope3 may also get slightly streamlined, so that Zope3 is what is
needed to run Zope2 but not more. That means that Zope3 would lose the
+1 in the context of Jeff Shell's vision about having one version with and
one without the ZMI (in whatever capacity) as a useful data/settings admin
3. We start rewriting CMF tools as Zope3 utilities, with the CMF tools
as a thin BBB layer (that may finally disappear). This becomes the
basis for the ECM "toolkit" for Zope3.
4. We develop TTW development tools for Zope3. I think me and Jim both
agree we should have these. I think me and Jim has a completely
different vision of what they should be. :)
+1 (though lower priority for me at present... I'm more concerned about
breaking CMF TTW template cuatomisation etc. in a Five world)
This, as far as I can see, is compatible with 99% of the visions we
have discussed here, and it will keep us busy for a year. :-)
I can see the point in separating out the non-webby parts of Zope3 to
gear it towards people who don't want a big applictaion server. And,
to be honest, if I did anything in python today, I'd want to use teh
component architecture, even though what I do didn't touch the web.
I'm not sure we want to name it Z but i'm not completely opposed
either. But I prefer Zope Component Architecture.
+1, I like the Zope 3 CA idea.
I am opposed to renaming Zope 3. It seems to me that the renaming of
Zope3 is suggested for three reasons:
1. "It makes Plone look bad by not running on the latest version of
I honestly couldn't care less. Sorry.
I don't know of anyone in the Plone community who's uttered this
sentiment. I certainly don't care.
2. "Python people doesn't like things called Zope".
Well, Zope3 was heavily geared towards making Zope pythonic. What has
the answer from the Python-crowd been? "Eeew, you are using XML!".
Honestly, I don't think renaming Zope3 will suddenly make the
python-crowd go "Oh, cool, you use XML!" I could be wrong, but that's
what I think.
But a Zope 3 CA that's non-web-focused and continues the ZCML slimming
tradition (if I can make adapters and interfaces without ZCML I think I'll
be happy - browser pages and views etc. don't matter in this case) and can
be separately deployed/depended upon makes sense.
3. "There is not enough hype!"
You don't need to rename Zope3 to hype it.
I think renaming will mean we loose a brand, and we make people
confused, and we need to change a whole lot of code. :) It doesn't
seem worth it.
I was always behind the idea of naming it Zope 3 <something>, not lose the
Zope or the 3. The <Something> is to have something to emphasise a brand
around. I think Paul had a really good post about this, though. I think
even Zope 3 CA and Zope 3 AS would work fine as names to build hype around.
Zope3-dev mailing list