[Zope-dev] Defining Zope 3.

[Gary Poster]

On Apr 15, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:

> Here are a list of things I have seen that you may mean when you say
> "Zope 3". I'm sure I missed several:
>
> 1. Whatever is included in the Zope 3 tgz that you download.
>
> 2. All the packages included in the Zope 3 KGS. (Should be the same as
> 1, if I understand correctly.)
>
> 3. 1 or 2 minus the ZMI.
>
> 4. The zope.app.publication publisher.
>
> 5. A loose set of packages starting with zope.*, zc.* and z3c.*
>
> 6. A strictly defined (by the Zope Toolkit KGS) set of packages
> starting with zope.*, zc.* and z3c.* that is central and common to
> Zope 3 in the sense of 1 or 2, and also Grok and Zope 2.
>
> 7. Technologies that you use when you develop with the packages in 5  
> and 6.
>
>
> I propose that the name Zope 3 applies *only* to 1 and 2. If future
> versions of 1 or 2 gets released without the ZMI (as discussed in
> other threads), then of course 1, 2 and 3 is the same.
>
> Opinions?

I've been away on a vacation of sorts, and find myself happy to not  
have been around for this firestorm.

A few observations.

- I very much agree with Lennart's observation that the definition of  
"Zope 3" is not clear.

- It may have been a mistake to use the name "Zope 3", but it is done  
now, and done a *long* time ago.  Trying to outright kill it feels  
like thrashing.

- Moreover, because *we* don't know what "Zope 3" means, I'm afraid  
users outside viewers are going to easily misinterpret any kind of  
message framed in the terms of "Zope 3's death" or "abandonment" or  
whatever.    How are they supposed to know what it means?

I was concerned about Tim Hoffman's statement in the long "who wants  
to maintain..." thread: "It seems from all the discussion of late that  
we might of chosen a architectural dead end  (though I don't think  
so)." We're not declaring the Zope 3 libraries (toolkit, whatever,  
bah) a dead end; far from it.  But how easy it is to make a sound bite  
from this discussion into basically that message? "Zope 3:  
architectural dead end."  I don't care for that, myself, nor do I find  
it accurate.

This message seems like a reasonable start to me:  "Zope 3 has become  
focused on supporting frameworks and applications, rather than trying  
to be one itself.  It is now called the Zope Toolkit.  Parts of it are  
used by Zope 2, Plone, Grok, Repoze.bfg, and by many other different  
applications and frameworks."

That message implies two things to me.

First, to start with, this is just a rename.  Zope 3, as defined by  
the KGS, becomes the Zope Toolkit.

Second, the "Zope Toolkit" is about supporting other frameworks.  That  
means that it is reasonable to expect that the packages and the parts  
of packages that were about the ZMI will quite possibly die a typical  
open source death of not enough people caring anymore.

I don't think trying to guess which parts or packages will die is a  
particularly useful exercise.  The community will support what the  
community supports...as usual.  This is open source.  You're gambling  
that enough other people will be there with you to make it worthwhile,  
and you may be required to step up with money or talent  or energy to  
make that happen.

So, again, in sum, I propose that this discussion should simply be  
reduced to a rename to start with: Zope 3, as defined by the KGS ->  
Zope Toolkit.  The software switch that this name change implies has  
started quite some time ago, with the eggification, and will continue  
in its natural and usual open-source course.

Gary