On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 09:43:03 -0330, Rocky Burt wrote:
On Tue, 2006-28-02 at 13:21 +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: [snip]
I would vote for spelling out Zed (which would also be a little easier to google but might create trademark problems). The namespace package could either be 'z' or 'zed'.
Then again, I really should take Jim's side and stay out of naming decisions.
Let's please not have a naming discussion again. I think renaming Zope 3 is really bad marketing myself and naming discussions mostly a waste of time...
As I sit here spending sooo much time reading this thread
yes, it's a big'un alright...
1) The Zope 3 name and brand is a marketing disaster (from my perspective) -- to be honest there's really no way I could see this actually getting worse by coming up with a new name. How many times in the #plone channel do we get asked, "Does Plone run on Zope 3.1/3.2?" or, "When will Plone run on Zope 3.2" to which we say "no" to the first question and "dunno" to the second question.
+100. it's a confusing mess to anyone who isn't spending as much time as we all are reading this stuff every day. come to think of it, it's a confusing mess to us, too.
If we started treating zope 3 as just a framework and put energies back into maintaing/refactoring/beautifying zope2 as an application server that uses that framework at its core (this is essentially what zope 2.8+ is working towards with Five IMHO) then this could help several ways: 1) we stop spending time reproducing zope2 app server functionality in zope3 2) we stop building more into zope2 as a framework (i think this is pretty much already happening)
i agree with this sentiment, although i do recognize that there are folks who are currently using zope3 as an app-server, and who (understandably) don't want to have anything to do w/ anything zope2 related, ever again.
Anyway, this still keeps things very confusing from a naming perspective (mostly for new adopters). So .... having said all of that, I am actually +1 on Jim's proposal #2. What I see from that (someone correct me if I'm wrong) is the following:
1) rename zope 3 the framework as Z or zopelib or Zed or something sensical that doesn't confuse the early adopter's conquest of trying to figure out which zope to start with 2) Make zope 2 the application server acquire the name "zope" once again and be the only app server. This could only work (from a new adopter's perspective) if either the application server is given a new name or given a version number higher than 3.
i support this idea as well, but i think we have to recognize that there will be some parallel app-server-ness happening for a while, until z2 becomes so thin that we have achieved complete convergence btn the z2/five-based and the z3-based app server platforms that are already being used. -r