AW: [Zope3-dev] Rid the term 'product'

[Roger ineichen]

> Hello,
> 
> I have a small proposal which is too untechnicnal to deserve 
> a wiki page:
> 
> Zope 3 is much more pythonic when it comes to extensions. 
> They needn't 
> be in special places anymore and fulfill weird packaging 
> rules. We all 
> know that that is a Good Thing. So, when we have used the 
> term 'product' 
> up till now in Zope 3 development, we were basically applying 
> the term 
> we have used in Zope 2 to something that wasn't even a 
> product in a Zope 
> 2 kind of sense.
> 
> Not only implies the term 'products' a placeful, Zope-specific python 
> package in that sense. It also implies much more to the Zope newbie 
> who's not familiar with Zope 2 jargon. I always caught myself 
> talking to 
> non-Zopistas about how easy it is to install new products in 
> Zope 2 and 
> only found out by the look on the other person's face that I had 
> forgotten to define the term 'product' as an extension or 
> plug-in. I've 
> frequently read comments and questions about exactly that.
> 
> The fact that a) Zope 3 extensions are not 'products' in a 
> Zope 2 kind 
> of sense and b) we're abusing a business term for a piece of software 
> makes me suggest to rid the term 'product' once and for all. 
> This is not 
> hard to do now that zopeproducts and zope.products are both dead. We 
> only have to change 'products.zcml' and the 'products' 
> directory in an 
> instance. I propose to call them 'extensions.zcml' and 'extensions' 
> (btw, I think having the directory makes the zcml file obsolete).
> 
> We will also have to update documentation. A simple grep 
> should do that. 
> Whenever we write new documentation, we should be careful not to fall 
> back to Zope 2 patterns.
> 
> Philipp

Thanks for the mail, I think it's a really important part.

I agree 100% not to use "products". At least not just "products".
But I think that's not exactly the problem. I see the problem
in how to communicate the new "component" concept of Zope3.

What do you think about "components"? I think it describes the
new Zope3 application server concept in a good way. 
And tell's the developer how the "products" should be writen.

I also think that's a hard way don't say "products", then what's
a wiki? I think it's a product. I mean in the future it's 
important to split future products in components and let other
people use some component of a "product" and write some own 
component like a own wiki page and use them with the rest of the 
wiki to run a customized wiki "product".

In the future I like to see good reusable components, good products
that are really good splited in reusable components which are 
replaceable and let the developer implement their own custom part's.
And I hoppe not to see to much monolitic products that try to 
handle all in one class. 

My vision is to write "products" which have the business logic outside 
of a content type e.g in services, utilities, or where you whant and 
give a way to plug this business logic in to content types. 

Interfaces are (just) outside of a class for to let the developer 
write their own implementation. But we have to take care that the 
developer don't import and hardcode their own components in all 
classes and give other developer a way to let change some part's.

In other words, every part which is described in a own interface, 
has to be implemented in a way, that can be replaced by other
developers. ;-)

Sometimes it's really hard to handle the complexity of Zope3 but 
I think, this is just how it is, to get a way for to develope 
"components" and not just "products".

I'm shure if we can handle this and show the difference, other
developer will see what they win with "components".   

Roger


> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Zope3-dev mailing list
> Zope3-dev at zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-dev
>