[Zope-dev] AW: [Zope3-dev] I'd lobe to merge the zope3-dev and zope-dev lists

[David Pratt]

Hi Andreas. Let me say I see the development paradigms as being the 
following without prejudice to any application that depends upon zope 3. 
Respectfully, no one is building walls. my contribution to the 
discussion is not about isolating folks but of the reality of the 
software differences.

zope 3 - an open framework - no borders, no boundaries - write and think 
as a python programmer. In essence zope 3 is is a framework without a 
frame. This fact that exists in this form gives it its elegance and 
power. It does not need to be an application and is more interesting 
when it is not.

zope 2 - an application tied strongly the cmf with the notion of a cms 
as the app. It is self contained and it is able to absorb zope 3 
packages and technologies. I see plone as an application layer build on 
top of the zope 2 application.

The fact that zope 3 is not specifically an  application, nor a 
traditional framework is also what can make it difficult for folks to 
distinguish zope 3 as something special. You only understand this once 
you are able to see it for what it is. To the uninitiated it may just 
seem a library of packages (and well, that's missing the point :-)) When 
one looks at the collection of software that makes up the python 
language, they see an elegant way to create. Zope 3 is like this and you 
are free to create anything you wish.

Folks looking for containment within a framework will look for 
traditional solutions that confine their development within a container 
with strict rules and one way to do it all. This has strong points but 
the least of those is flexibility and diversity. Think if our creator 
had thought of only one way to create an animal and the possibilities 
and opportunities lost to create all the diversity we see on our planet.

I've developed in zope2 and recognize and respect it as a powerful web 
platform that answers specific solutions. For me, considerable 
flexibility was lost when you are not programming as a python programmer 
and programming for the api of the application.

I have always wanted what zope 3 provides. I do not want to see it given 
any other ground or see the development of zope 3 pushed or pulled by 
interests that best serve one application or another. Zope 2, Plone 3, 
SchoolTool, Grok, Bebop, and many commercial interests and projects 
including those by Lovely and others are beginning to show how diverse 
Zope 3 can be (and all have an interest in the development of zope 3). I 
should say this diversity extends to desktop applications as well as the 
web.

Personally, I see zope 2 and 3 as distinctly different. The development 
is different and the goals are different. Collaboration is always a good 
idea but in the same way that any programmer depending upon zope 3 
packages will want to maintain an interest in zope 3 development.

I also see zope 2 developers in the same context as other application 
developers that utilize zope3 in their efforts.  Collaboration can occur 
freely without merging the specific development lists or interests of 
grok-dev, zope-dev, plone and other application development (that would 
have simililar interests) in the development list of zope 3.

I don't see "zope" as a synonym for zope 2 and zope 3 either, any more 
that I could see it as a synonym for SchoolTool and zope3 or Grok and 
zope 3 (though obviously all a part of the zope community with a special 
interest in zope 3). Common ground and unified forums for the community 
is a different interest than merging development lists for the software. 
zope 2 and zope 3 share the same name but it my opinion calling it all 
"zope" is really a bad idea and perpetuates a problem.

Given the way history has unfolded, i'd have rather seen zope 3 given a 
new name, and have had an opportunity to have dissociated itself from 
zope 2 in a clear way without the premise or goal of trying to fold zope 
2 'the application" and zope 3 "the framework without a frame" together. 
It is alright (and frankly realistic) to suggest we have two software 
lines here that are very different. Personally, I don't see these ever 
being the same and future 'marketing' efforts should respect this if 
marketing is a concern.

The notion of the zope 3 application is fading as it should with the 
developments of the last year. I wouldn't want to see zope 3 revert to 
something or extend parts that have it looking like the zope 2 of four 
years ago for the sake of unifying the developer community under a 
generic "zope" flag. In any case, long message, but I hope this 
clarifies my view on this.

Regards,
David


Andreas Jung wrote:
> 
> 
> --On 6. Oktober 2007 12:03:06 -0300 David Pratt <fairwinds at eastlink.ca> 
> wrote:
> 
>> I agree with you Roger. I want things to stay as they are for the same
>> reasons. I have great respect for Zope 2 developers however there there
>> are two development paradigms at play that are fundamentally incompatible
>> despite the inclusion of component architecture in Zope 2.
>>
> 
> 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.
> 
> Andreas