[ZWeb] Not another ___Nuke site, please

Jeffrey P Shell jeffrey@cuemedia.com
Tue, 14 Jan 2003 12:44:02 -0700

On Tuesday, January 14, 2003, at 03:34  AM, Paul Everitt wrote:

> Ausum Studio wrote:
>> What it's in discussion, up to the extent of what current nzo 
>> development
>> responsibles allow, is whether or not the new ZopeOrg should use 
>> Plone for
>> the sake of a faster deployment and future maintaining facilities, or 
>> not.
>> If the problem was reduced to that I'd say OK, but unfortunately nzo's
>> technology adoptions will be a reference point of what Zope and its 
>> Content
>> Management Framework is, and therefore will act as an endorsement of 
>> the
>> whole community (or at least ZC's on behalf of it) to the design 
>> decisions
>> of its developers.
> This is an important and useful point.  I'm not sure, though, what to 
> conclude from it.
> For instance, nzo is using the CMF.  The CMF isn't universally 
> accepted in Zopeland, though it's getting closer.  According to this 
> argument, nzo is making an endorsement that the CMF is the right way 
> to build content management sites.
> I can live with that endorsement.  At some point you have to do one of 
> two things:

Let's not forget that the CMF exists as a result of CZO :).

CZO drove the "Zope.org in a box" idea which became the "PTK" which 
finally was stripped of its ZClass issues (deployment, etc) to become 
the "CMF".  Which in turn let to an appreciation of a services based 
architecture, which leads us to some of the Zope 3 fundamentals.


There is no right way to build content management sites, because 
content management concepts range from the personal weblog (part of me 
can't believe they call weblog products "content management systems") 
to managing the New York Times and CNN.com or MSNBC.  Or CBS New York