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