On Jan 6, 2007, at 7:19 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:

Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Just splitting stuff up into little flexible pieces won't attract people. If our goal is to attract Zope 3 developers we need to make it easy to get started. We can also say that Zope 3 is componentized and flexible and all that, and this will attract developers too, but if the first bit is too hard all our talk about flexibility will lead to nothing.

So, we need to do both: make it easy to get started, and componentizing for greater flexibility later. If we just do the first, we make Zope 2 style mistakes and end up with a monolithic system that should be easier to develop with. If we just do the latter, we make Zope 3 style mistakes and end up with a well componentized system that isn't used a lot.
Agreed, we need both.  We should understand though that the thing I'm
calling (soley for the sake of discussion) is probably not a good
starting point.

I think I miss a word here; the thing you're calling what?

Sorry, OFS

IMO, it could be if someone was working on it.
I also think that it would be a fine project on it's own.  Or maybe
there's another project that would serve better. I don't know.

I'm trying to understand what you're referring to here. :)

I'm referring to the application we've been distributing in Zope 3 releases, which, for the sake of discussion, I've been calling the OFS and you've been
calling the ZMI.


Jim Fulton                      mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]                Python 
CTO                             (540) 361-1714                  
Zope Corporation        http://www.zope.com             http://www.zope.org

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

Reply via email to