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

[Roger ineichen]

Casey Duncan wrote:
> Philipp von Weitershausen <philipp at weitershausen.de> wrote:
> 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I have a small proposal which is too untechnicnal to deserve a wiki
> > page:
> 
> I'm not sure technical-ness determines that, but whatever.
>  
> > 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.
> 
> I've been teaching Zope for some time and I've always found 
> the term "Product" unclear if not confusing to explain. At 
> the least it's quite unintuitive.
> 
> I do think it is valuable to have terminology for artifacts 
> that compose things built for and with Zope 3. Here are some 
> random thoughts:
> 
> A Zope "application" is a standalone system built using Zope. 
> This system has a default configuration which allows it to be 
> used without further scripting, development or configuration 
> then what is provided in the app's distribution.
> 
> A Zope "component" is a molecule of a Zope application. A 
> Lego brick. In the end these are combined in various ways to 
> create applications.
> 
> A Zope "library" is a collection of components distributed 
> together. It probably isn't useful on it's own, but it might 
> include an example application or two. We could also call 
> these "bundles" I suppose, but I'm unsure why a new word 
> needs to be used. To me "library" fits. A "library" is a bit 
> more than a Python "package" (since it contains some 
> Zope-isms like interfaces, zcml, page templates or other zope
> dependancies) and would follow the Zope conventions for 
> layout and naming.
> 
> The Zope "framework" is Zope itself. It is both a (meta) 
> library and (at least one) application all together. The 
> application provided is fairly low-level and designed more as 
> an advanced management utility then something Joe Internet would use.
> 
> I think we should resist inventing/repurposing words pretty 
> hard unless there is no precident for what we are doing.

I tried this to say before, for me is more important to show
how you can develope in Zope3 and explain the new concepts.
That's a reason for to use a (in Zope2) unused word like components.
Such a new word has the posibility to map, a new concept,
in the brains, of Zope2 users.

The word products in Zope2 was for me not such a problem.
Somebody can say the new name for products is xy, but
what was really hard, is to try out everey product and to
find out by itself what's really works.

For me is much important to separate the good supported
products form the ... one. And find a concept we can 
manage this.

What's about a kind of "commenting" or "ranking" of good
Zope3 products, components, packages, bundles, distributions 
or whatevery you whana call this files.

We need new concepts for to present Zope3 and not only 
better names. This does not mean that I'm against this 
names. I think all of you are right with the meaning of 
them. But just new concepts can make the life easier and 
not the new names.

I really belive we need more good concepts for to bring 
the great new concepts to the people. And let the people 
say, not just Zope3 is better, there is also a better way 
to working together. 


(Z)extensions
I think it's not just a small <wink> from Tim Peters!
It's a base marketing concepts of positioning in the 
future market.

In my beginning with working with Zope I was enthusiastic
to see concepts like Sprint's or words like ZClasses.
This was the *Z*-way to do things and that wasn't bad.

This little things are very important if you whana brand
a product and much more important if you whana get a hype.
And that's just possible if you don't copy concepts from
java or pyhton and use the same words. Then you get really
fast branded as a copy of their concepts. 
Specially if you use own namings before and switch to namings
in other concepts. 
(see PHP5, here in switzerland we see some kidding news which
makes joke that PHP will be a little java, because of
their class implemetations)
I'm really find Zope3 isn't a copy of something. And this 
needs sometimes to go own ways.


So, I know, I came all the time with my stupid comments 
on wrong topics, to long mails and in a really bad english, 
but don't hate me because of this. I have just have a wrong 
linked brain and see the things most the time different 
then others. But sometimes together with normal thinking 
peoples can grow great ideas. ;-)


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