> What do you man by "two development paradigms"?
> Please don't build a wall between Zope 2 and Zope 3
> developers. Most "old-school" Zope 2 developers are doing
> development also with Zope 3 components and Zope 3
> techniques. Look at Plone 3.0 and its heavy usage of Zope 3
> techniques...impressing. The Zope 3 development paradigms are
> highly accepted by most Zope 2 core developers...we are all
> sitting in the same boat. There is a fundamental difference
> in the Zope 2 and Zope 3 architecture but little difference
> between the paradigms how we should design and write software
> on top of the Zope platform in the future.
> The distinction between Zope 2 and Zope 3 must disappear. We
> must speak of "Zope". Everything else is counterproductive
> when it comes to promoting Zope. There is only one Zope
> developer community and most of us have a Zope
> 2 and a Zope 3 hat on (others have a CMF or a Plone head). An
> artificial separation between Zope 2 and Zope 3 developers is
> undesirable in my opinion.
You are using 7 times the term "Zope2" and 9 times "Zope 3"
and also "Plone 3.0" in this small text. Can you try to describe
this without "2 or 3" in "Zope *"? I guess not, right?
I really don't care about how it is called, but I'm sure we
need some naming convention and since we have one, I don't see
any reason to change this.
You also use the term "Plone 3.0" which you implie that we
know that you mean the Plone which uses Zope 3 components.
You are respecting the postifx 3.0 in the Plone world but
not for Zope? why?
I'm a little confused and don't understand why you are lobbing
for such a renaming and at the same time you are using this
terms so heavy.
Zope3-dev mailing list