On 5 July 2011 10:18, Hanno Schlichting
<hanno@hannosch.eu> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Martin Aspeli <
optilude+lists@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would've thought it would also be possible for those who rely on this to
> maintain the relevant eggs as optional installations against Zope 2.x, no?
zope.app in Zope2. Once there's no more ZMI, Products.PageTemplates
stops using RestrictedPython and the OFS base classes don't inherit
from Acquisition.Implicit anymore, it'll be really hard to keep the
legacy development approach working.
I think it might be useful to spell out the reasons behind this (here, or better yet, somewhere more permanent like
zope.org). I can imagine people reading this and wondering why it's a good idea, especially those who have an investment in the existing technologies.
Someone might try, but I think it's not a wise decision to spent any
resources that way. At some point every application written in the
legacy style has to be rewritten. I think it would be a better use of
resources for anyone to start doing that than maintaining a dead-end.
This is a pretty sweeping statement that I think could cause a lot of nervousness. It might be the right thing in many ways, but we need to at least provide a bit more context. If you're a business that's invested dozens of person-years into a product, the prospect of rewriting could seem fairly daunting. At least we, as the Zope 2 community, need to set out the case for change and some kind of idea of timing and transition path, even if that means in some cases getting to a "long term maintenance" release and in other cases evolving away from certain technologies whilst being confident to keep using others.
Martin