Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
Max M wrote:
That's unfair. Jeff is actively participating on the list. Which list
are you refering to, BTW? He has posted about 10 mails on the "two
visions" thread in the past 2 days.
Geoff Davis wrote:
Jeff Shell has posted some thought-provoking pieces on his blog that are
relevant to Jim's recent attempt to better articulate a vision for Zope:
Griddle *Noise* and thats exactly what it is... noise.
He is probably following the discussions on the lists, and then he is
publishing his view on them on his blog instead of participating in
ok. My mistake. I was judging him purely from the point of those two
blog items, and they where rather poor imho.
Eg. "I’ve also been advocating a “Zope without all of Zope” release."
vs. "I still have a hard time knowing how best to start a new
‘application’ in Zope 2 or 3. There are too many options, with too much
work to go along with each one."
Well it's simply not possible to have both more freedom of modules you
want to use, and to lessen the options and the work needed to be done.
We will need most of the same features in the end, so either we use the
same framwork, which will be frustrating, or we will write our own.
Which will suck. It's not a Zope problem. Its just a fact of life. In
any software project.
Another comment is "Gripe 1, Message message message. There is no
message." eg. Zope sites sucks, Ruby On Rails site is great.
Well as far as I can see, the RoR people are just doing a rigged
demonstration of what it does best. And they are still years behind in
development of their framework.
Switching to rail will make Rail-like applications simple, but the rest
will be very hard.
Zope on the other hands does a million things, and has been through a
million iterations. And the websites reflects that complexity.
We coul use a better intro site I agree, and better docs, and ... yeah
well the works. But we also have to budget our time.
He is just another developer who wants Zope to consists of only those
elements that he is insterrested in.
but that's a perfectly valid concern. Zope needs some more decoupling of
Well ok. I might have been too harsh. No harm intended.
But the message I got from the blog items where that Zope sucked because
it didn't do it's decoupling of concerns that he wanted, the way he
I found *that* to be unfair, which is why I jumped the gun.
Zope 2 + 3 has a pretty clear direction. "Zope 3 is great we need to use
it more". "Zope 2 is great we need keep it and make it use more of Zope 3".
That is the vision. We are just arguing on how to get there in the most
efficient way. So we know we want to get from a to b. Now we are just
arguing about the best route.
Some wants to have a big lump of connected code. Eg me. And others wants
a scattered collection of independent modules. But as it seems right
now, we will probably get both.
As far as I can tell the concencus that is building is a three level
1) a python level. With no interdependecies.
2) an appserver level. With a minimal Zope
3) an application, with z3ecm, or the like.
(Which I find is the most important to get working)
The discussions right now are more on the line of where to draw the
lines between the layers.
So that should be enough sepearation of concerns. And if the releases
are in synch every 6 months, even I should be happy about that approach.
hilsen/regards Max M, Denmark
IT's Mad Science
Zope3-dev mailing list