[Zope-dev] beta.zope.org (www.zope.org relaunch project)

Martijn Faassen faassen at startifact.com
Tue May 10 05:52:14 EDT 2011

Hi there,

On 05/10/2011 06:55 AM, Andreas Jung wrote:

> Constructive criticism and feedback is welcome _now_.

Application servers has Zope & BlueBream.

Then Grok's at the bottom under 'Frameworks' together with CMF, Repoze, 

Grok is most like BlueBream and should be in a category with BlueBream. 
If Grok's a framework so's BlueBream.

I'd call 'Application servers', which is mostly a term from Java land, 
"web frameworks" instead, because that's what Python developers will 
understand, and put Zope, BlueBream and Grok under it. If it sorts 
alphabetically (frameworks seems to do so) and Grok comes first, I don't 
mind. :)

Just think about whether Zope stuff is more like this:


or more like this:


The Frameworks entry seems like a total grab bag to me ("I didn't know 
where to put this"), which is why I wouldn't want Grok presented that 
way. But you'd need to split up 'Frameworks' really.

ZCA and ZPT can be successfully presented as libraries (framework-style 
libraries perhaps, but they're just libraries you can install and use), 
and ZTK is a collection of libraries (which in fact contains the former 
two libraries).

I'd say make a new heading:

Zope Toolkit

Put under it:



* other Zope toolkit libraries

So we're highlighting two important libraries and say we have a lot 
more, managed within the ZTK.

You can put CMF and Repoze under Frameworks if you wish.

But a question: do we really want to present CMF as a current framework 
that people can use to start projects on? If not, and it's legacy only, 
should we really present it as an entry point? I'm not sure where Repoze 
would go in all this though.



More information about the Zope-Dev mailing list