Roger Ineichen wrote:
But I also see another point of view. Zope 3 as a product we can lobby for and a application server which is ready to use with a easy setup. e.g. windows installer or buildout, easy install. I think such a Zope 3 application server has the following benefit.

- easy to install and ready to use for newbees or small projects
- a proof that we are able to setup such a working server
- a working setup which 3rd party developer can develop with
- a product which the sales can show and lobby for

But who will do this?

I know who, I know who! :)

Probably we need a own community which picks up this
task and supports a Zope application server built with cool zope components out there.

And we have such a community: Grok!

See and grok-dev for the community that is doing what you describe for the last year or so.

This is *exactly* what is Grok is about. I'm not kidding. We don't call it Zope 3. We call it "Grok" or "Zope Grok". We build on the giant that is Zope 3. This way we avoid the confusion on whether Zope 3 is a set of libraries or a web framework you can install and try out. Grok's the latter.

I can imagine you don't agree with some of the choices we made with Grok. I'd be happy to see other communities that try to do the same thing. It'll only benefit the underlying technology of Grok, after all.

One outcome of this discussion might be that we all indeed agree with the naming choice we made with Grok: we don't want to call such a web application framework "Zope 3", but something else, to separate the concerns.



Zope3-dev mailing list

Reply via email to