On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 10:22 -0500, 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.  IMO, it could be if someone was working on it.
> I also think that it would be a find project on it's own.  Or maybe
> there's another project that would serve better. I don't know.

I'm coming in to this discussion very late but if one goal is to enable
the creation of OFS-like applications on top of an OFS-less application
server, does anyone have recipes for building the latter that could be
used as a starting point?

- Michael R. Bernstein

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

Reply via email to