Rob Jeschofnik wrote:

Jim Fulton wrote:

I think a lack of a realistic vision means that we are pulling in
different directions.  I think this is causing a lot of harm.

I think the crux of the issue here is that presently, we do not have a consistent answer to the question "What is `Zope'?". I think what Jim is attempting is to solve this problem.

I don't think the crux is that one doesn't know what it is. Zope as "an application server with a set of libraries somehow independent of the server" should be good enough, unless one is writing an ontological essay?

The main issue is that different development models and different architectures are used in zope2, in zope3 and now possibly if the "set of libraries" approach is promoted because such notions as ZODB, acquisition, ZPT will be decoupled there will be yet another development pattern.

So to write a tutorial or some documentation on how to develop for zope, you'll have to think of the three scenarios, or target audiences: the zope2 developer, the zope3 developer and the python developer. The difficulty is in finding a common approach in which all three development philosophies do not stand in opposition which one another. So maybe instead of starting with the differences, on should emphasize the aspects that they have in common, and one will be able to called that "zope".

Zope3-dev mailing list

Reply via email to