Jim Fulton wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:

Anyway - I hope these perspectives are useful. I'm certainly not disagreeing with what you're saying or with the direction you're pointing out. I think
we just need be mindful that there were some good things about the past
approaches as well as problems (not that you're not).

I think we're in strong agreement.  I think we need both the Framework
and the apps that use the Framework, including Zope2/Plone-style pluggable
apps.  I think we need to keep these efforts somewhat distinct though.
I'd love to see projects that focus on building killer apps on top of the
Zope 3 framework.  I just want people to understand that the application
!= the framework.

As a non-developer observer, I'm +1 with Jim's discussion. Martin, you're right that developer influx should be the key goal, and that (a) simpler entry points like Grok and (b) killer apps are the way to get to that goal.

I don't think the killer app, though, should be the responsibility of the Zope project. More bluntly, I don't think it's fair to tell the Zope 3 core team to do it: they are more interested in machinery, they don't need to do it for their jobs, and are already giving us plenty. Let's decrease the responsibilities of the core.

(Note: 3 years ago I lobbied heavily for the Zope 3 to keep the TTW dream alive, but my thinking was flawed.)

Couple of interesting side points:

1) It took me a couple of years to realize Zope 3 wasn't aimed at me, then another year to realize this was a good thing. [grin] Higher-level systems need industrial-strength stuff. People like me are looking for quick hits, not industrial-strength.

I later hoped, though, that Zope 3 would make it easier to build something aimed at me, like Archetypes or possibly Grok.

2) Jim pointed out something earlier in the thread, and I think Suresh might have alluded to it, but the "OFS" (including TTW stuff and ZClasses) was interesting and useful and a "killer app".

But they existed not because the community that sprung up after Zope's open source-ing were willing to build it. Instead, that software and that audience were inherited from Principia, which most certainly didn't want to sell a platform. We were aiming at end-user power developers, going so far as to hide (gasp!) Python.

An interesting conclusion: the current-core-team might not have built the "OFS". And yet, the TTW stuff was galvanizing to some audience, and part of the sex appeal that helped Zope take off. My lesson from this: to succeed, you have to have both a good idea and people ready to commit to it.

Thus, telling the Zope 3 core team to own and distribute the killer app is neither realistic nor fair. Move Zope 3 to its natural turf and collaborate with folks that feel passionate about other turf.

Application != the framework.


Zope3-dev mailing list
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to