[Zope3-dev] Re: Bug 358/359, 367 fixed

[Roger Ineichen]

Hi Paul

Behalf Of Paul Everitt
> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 10:06 AM
> To: zope3-dev at zope.org
> Subject: [Zope3-dev] Re: Bug 358/359, 367 fixed
> 
> Chris Withers wrote:
> > Roger Ineichen wrote:
> > 
> >> There is no reason to have different managment interfaces
> >> like you propose as general. Then the Zope3 application 
> server will never
> >> contain a "built in CMS for endusers" like Plone.
> > 
> > 
> > Who says it should? I really think this is a very bad idea 
> to aim for, 
> > as that's exactly howthe Z2 ZMI started out and exactly why 
> it has the 
> > problems it does to day.
> > 
> > Concentrate on building a ZMI for Zope 3 that enables 
> developers like 
> > you and me to easily build CMS'es, rather than trying to 
> build one CMS. 
> > That's Z3's sweet spot from evrything I've read...
> 
> AFAIK, both of these statements describe the original Zen 
> that started 
> Zope 3 and remain as the guiding principles.  I'll describe some more 
> bullet points that reflect my understanding, and find out from the 
> Powers That Be(tm) if I have it wrong:
> 
> 1) Zope 3 isn't an user application, it is a system for building 
> end-user applications (as Chris said).

1+

> 2) Zope 3 is focused on components developers.  After that, it is 
> focused on Site Managers.  After that, "Site Scripter".  Much, much 
> after that, Content Authors.

1+

> 3) Zope 3 has *a* UI that is the default, but this isn't *the* UI. 
> Rotterdam is just a starting point.
> 
> I think this third point has mutated into a different status quo. 
> There's a feeling that Rotterdam should be central, like the ZMI was. 
> I'm not sure if there is total consensus on this point.
> 
> If Rotterdam *is* meant to be central (e.g. documented in books, thus 
> meaning it shouldn't change radically), then we have some thinking to 
> do.  What is the relationship b/w Rotterdam and the CPS 3000 
> (or Silva, 
> or Plone) UI?  If we expect most people to look at Zope 3 via an 
> application's UI, how (or should) that UI relate to Rotterdam?

For my understanding, but this coul be wrong in some use cases:

If we have a UI like Zope2 (yes z2) it is recomended for application
to use the same concept where we see in higher applications.
It's Not a MUST, but you get a really bad situation if you implement 
a totaly different concept on a enduser application level. If some
customers will deep into the roots of the application server, they have
to learn it again. I recommend to workout a good general concept
for UI and implement a ZMI UI based on this concept. I think 
in genereal the Rotterdam is pretty good. But needs a lot of 
improvment in compatibility and has to offer a concept where 
other developer can register e.g. javascripts etc.

Perhaps somebody can workout a enduser skin based on the same concept.

DOn't understand this right, I propose not ONE right solution.
But it's easier if we don't change concepts in different UI's. 


> IMO, we should focus Rotterdam on the set of audiences and 
> tasks that we 
> expect to be not covered by CPS/Silva/Plone/etc. 3000.  Stuff like 
> configuration.  Lowest common denominator.

They just have to accept, that a Zope application server UI
reflects a visual way for show the ZODB hierarchie!

All other (flat) concept are hard to explain in relation 
to the ZODB which is central. 

I think any UI which doesn't refelect this pattern has it
hard to show what's exactly behinde and where are the 
components came from. 
This is some times the right solution. But not uesable for 
to show what's behind a application.

> I realize that this point is unlikely to find broad consensus.  We'll 
> probably need a papal edict.  Once we have the edict and get 
> answers on 
> the above, we can build the right UI...and, stop disagreeing. :^)

Yup

> >> SiteScripter SiteDesigner SiteDeveloper ComponentDeveloper 
> SiteManager 
> >> WorkflowDesigner System Administrator
> > 
> > 
> > I think the above are the only people who are event close 
> to beign "Zope 
> > 3"'s targetr audience. All others will come in and use 
> something akin to 
> >  "Plone for Z3"...
> > 
> >> I'm even not happy to see such flat management interface 
> in real CMS
> >> application, but that's another part.
> > 
> > 
> > Indeed, stay focused, make Z3's ZMI useful for Z3 users, 
> rather than 
> > trying to make it useful for Z3's users' users ;-)
> 
> Good lord, I'm about to say something amazing..."I agree with 
> Chris." :^)

Regards
Roger Ineichen

> --Paul
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Zope3-dev mailing list
> Zope3-dev at zope.org
> Unsub: 
> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/dev%40projekt01.ch
> 
>