-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jim Fulton wrote:
Thanks for posting this. (Thank you too Chris for starting the Zope 4 thread.) Despite the inevitable bike shedding, I think this is a discussion worth having.
Here are my opinions, which build on the arguments you gave, even though I disagree with some of your conclusions.
1. I hate "Zope Classic". It was a mistake for Coke and I think it would be a mistake for us too. :)
2. I think Zope 3 the application should die. It should go the way of New Coke.
3. I think the word "Zope" should refer to both the application currently called Zope 2 and the Zope ecosystem, depending on context, although I'm also fine with coming up with another name as long as it doesn't imply obsolescence. :)
Amen to all of that. WRT the "Framework" name: "framework" is a misleading name for the collection of packages salvaged from the "new Coke" effort: it is actually a *bunch* of frameworks, in the classic software engineering sense, along with some "pure" libraries. The notional "Zope Framwork" is alos *not* what other Python web developers mean when they say "web framework": Grok and BFG fit that meaning. Zope2 is really an "app server" / "pluggable application", rather than a "web framework". Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJ3QAR+gerLs4ltQ4RAjzaAJ43T+lwhHt9KCiVHsw1V+/tN2aZFACfc5HA bWiGfqU8wk4/dGpDd5pD0ZQ= =qAY1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----