Albertas Agejevas wrote:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 08:32:52AM -0600, Shane Hathaway wrote:
Given that definition, Zope Toolkit will start relatively small, since much of Zope 3 does not yet qualify. However, as people refine packages, the packages will be reconsidered for inclusion in the Zope Toolkit, and the Zope Toolkit will hopefully grow into something similar to what we currently know as Zope 3.
Zope 3 can't die; people are relying on it and maintaining it. The maintainers are doing a rather good job too, IMHO. The checkins list has been active lately. We don't have to create any more Zope 3 tarballs, but we should keep up the KGS.
The Zope Toolkit will be the subset that's good for building applications, web sites, and frameworks. Zope 3 will be designed only for building applications and web sites.
+1, this sounds like a good way forward.
Thanks. It occurred to me that one simple test of a Zope naming scheme is to consider what employers will write in job descriptions. Consider these alternatives: 1. "Candidate must be have Zope 3 experience." 2. "Candidate must be experienced with the Zope Toolkit." #1 is ambiguous. If I'm highly experienced with Grok or Repoze, doesn't that count? What if I'm a modern Plone developer? If the HR department does the hiring, they are likely to disqualify good candidates. #2 should allow developers experienced with Grok, Repoze, modern Plone, and possibly even Twisted, but does not allow old-school Zope 2 or inexperienced Python developers. This seems much more like what typical employers want to express. Shane