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
I think I miss a word here; the thing you're calling what?
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
which, for the sake of discussion, I've been calling the OFS and
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