On Saturday 06 October 2007 13:14, Andreas Jung wrote:
You are using 7 times the term "Zope2" and 9 times "Zope 3" and also "Plone 3.0" in this small text. Can you try to describe this without "2 or 3" in "Zope *"? I guess not, right?
s/Zope 2/Zope application server s/Zope 3/Zope components
I personally feel quiet offended to see Zope 3 degraded to a set of components. Zope 3 in itself is also an application server; Zope 2, on the other hand, is an application.
I really don't care about how it is called, but I'm sure we need some naming convention and since we have one, I don't see any reason to change this.
As said: there was a big discussion on the terms "Zope 2" and "Zope 3" during the last DZUG conference. Bringing it to the point: the terms "zope 2" and "zope 3" should die. There's only 'Zope'.
I have not been involved in this discussion. Having discussions like this during a conference is good as a starting point, but should never be seen as a canonical decision.
Although you are a Zope component-only developer you can not ignore the dependent applications and framework.
So you are saying I have to change Zope 3's story to cope with Zope 2's identity crisis? Honestly, degrading Zope 3 to a set of libraries and components is marketing poisoning for people deploying pure Zope 3 applications. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training