Andrew Milton wrote:
> I think making a distinction between the app servers and the
> framework/architecture is a good idea, it then just becomes a matter of
> educating our current or potential users.
Indeed, I hope you'd agree that differentiating them both by nothing
more than version number is bad, especially given that the framework
uses the same version number as one of the app servers, and yet the
framework is *used* in both of them...
> If "we" want the name "Zope" to reference the underlying technology then
> the app servers for all versions need to be relabelled as something
I've suggested Zope A & B, Zope Classic & Zope Advanced, Zope Taz &
nothing... take your pick or suggest some more :-)
> Decide where the line is first, then worry about naming things later.
The lines are pretty much there.
We have "Zope 2 the app server" - long may it continue
"Zope 3 the app server" - which no-one seems that fussed about
"The Zope Framework" - which everyone (both of the above, repoze, grok,
plone) cares about.
All the other players were sensible enough to give themselves separate
names in the first place (grok, repoze, plone, etc)
> After all new users don't know the name now, and existing users can cope
> with a cosmetic thing like a name change.
> Let's work out if there is a problem. Then work out how to solve it.
> Then solve it. Let's not do it backwards.
The only problem I was trying to address with this proposal was to
clarify the naming and versioning of the various aspects of the Zope
world. My views on what are sensible choices of app server or framework
project are something completely different, I'd just like to have a
clear vocabulary when arguing about them ;-)
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -