[Zope3-dev] RFC: move 'App' out of 'Zope'

[Lynn Ranen]

+1
If the reuseable packages are meant to be standalone, I would like to see
them taken out of the Zope hierarchy, and handled as seperate products
altogether.  I have written a "proof-of-concept" app using the PageTemplates
and the Publishing code (Zope3).  These are both quite useful, but it's a
little too unnerving to just grab chunks of a system and use it in
production code.  I mean, I couldn't actually expect future-compatibility
and stability -- both of which are important considerations.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: zope3-dev-admin@zope.org [mailto:zope3-dev-admin@zope.org]On
> Behalf Of holger krekel
> Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 8:38 AM
> To: Martijn Faassen
> Cc: zope3-dev@zope.org
> Subject: Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: move 'App' out of 'Zope'
>
>
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > I'd like to call people's attention to the idea I just had concerning
> > directory hierarchy reorganization, before it's monday and it's too
> > late. :)
> >
> > Currently, we have the following:
> >
> >   python
> >     Zope
> >       App
> >       reusable packages
> >
> > where 'Zope' is the namespace package for everything developed
> by the zope
> > community, and 'App' is the namespace package that contains the actual
> > Zope 3 application server code. 'App' depends on things in 'Zope', but
> > not the other way around.
> >
> > In the current renaming proposal, this would look essentially unchanged:
> >
> >   python
> >     zope
> >       app
> >       reusable packages
> >
> > Though we've already granted that 'zodb' should have its own toplevel
> > package:
> >
> >   python
> >     zope
> >       app
> >       reusable packages
> >     zodb
> >
> > Now my proposal would be to move 'app' out of 'zope', as it's
> out of place
> > among all these reusable packages. While we're at it, let's
> also rename 'app'
> > *to* 'zope', as really when we speak about "Zope 3" we are
> talking about
> > the application server in the 'app' package. Since we then have
> to rename
> > the 'zope' namespace to something else, let's pick 'zc' (provisionally,
> > there are some objections as it could be considered to stand for
> > "Zope Corporation" and not "Zope Community"). (what about shortening
> > it to 'z'? Then we have the 'z' everywhere! :)
> >
> > It'd look like this:
> >
> >   python
> >     zc (was zope)
> >       reusable packages
> >     zope (was app)
> >     zodb
>
> why not
>
>     python
>       zope (was app)
>       reusable packages e.g.:
>       zodb
>       pagetemplate
>       security
>       ...
>
> If the reusable packages are reusable they should be able
> to stand on their own.
>
> Of course there are dependencies between the reusable packages.
> They should be clearly stated in a README file (like we did for
> Security and Schema in rotterdam). A Zope3 release then becomes
> a 'quality approved' distribution of 'zope' and all the reusable
> packages.
>
> regards,
>
>     holger
>
> _______________________________________________
> Zope3-dev mailing list
> Zope3-dev@zope.org
> http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-dev