-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Baiju M wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Hanno Schlichting <hanno@hannosch.eu> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 3:56 AM, Baiju M <mbaiju@zeomega.com> wrote:
I would like to get your opinion about this position statement, as it involve the wider Zope ecosystem. However, we tried to be diplomatic about other project's relationship with ZTK as we don't want to claim anything about others:
Two things:
- Repoze is a brand name like Zope but not a particular project. BFG is a web application framework. BFG was certainly never based on Zope 3. But even the claim that it is based on the ZTK is far fetched. It depends on zope.component, zope.configuration and their dependencies. That's similar to Twisted depending on zope.interface or TurboGears depending on zope.sqlalchemy and transaction. Presenting it as if the dependency of BFG onto the ZTK is similar in scope to Grok or Zope2 is misleading.
- Plone isn't a web application framework but a specific application. Zope 2 is a web application framework. If you want to include Plone into the graph, you have to put it at a different level than the other things. And both the dependency on Zope 3 and the ZTK are mediated via the Zope 2 dependency.
So a 2010 graph should read more like:
Plone Zope2 Grok BlueBream BFG ZTK ZCA
Where there's a direct line from BFG to ZCA bypassing the ZTK. In the 2008 version ZTK would be Zope 3 with BlueBream missing.
Thanks for the feedback. I have changed the Repoze to BFG.
But the lines are just to indicate that there is some relation. We tried to be very careful when talking about the relation as we don't want to claim anything, at the same time, it doesn't contradict anything in reality:
For example:
"Over time, other web frameworks, such as Grok / BFG evolved around Zope 3, which primarily utilize certain library packages from Zope 3 and don't make use of the Zope 3 application server."
In the case of Plone also, it's very true:
"Other products, such as Plone also started to make use of the Zope 3 component architecture and the accompanied packages"
Also we emphasized:
"We cannot officially speak for other projects, so you can check their documentation to understand the relationship with ZTK"
Sorry, we don't have any plan to show the exact relationship between projects.
Channeling Chris here: BFG can't truly be said to be a Zope3-derived framework: it doesn't *require* application developers to use the ZCA, altho[ugh it happens to use the ZCA in its implementation (primarily as an optimization at this point). Its dependencies have never included more than a handful of Zope3 packages (zope.interface, zope.component, zope.configuration, and dependencies). Its notions of a view is radically different than a Zope3 view, for instance: in BFG, a view is nearly always just a function or other callable, and only rarely (primarily in migrated code) a class / factory taking context and request and returning a "view object." In 2010, *none* of the Zope3 technologies are "required knowlege" for a BFG developer: you can literally write a BFG app which imports *nothing* from the zope.* namespace at all (nor ZODB and related packages, etc.) Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAktX4w0ACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ4/4ACgiPFOk3OuyTBhlBwaKtPx+xum Gm0AniQd3CzgBLXkzyHP5cWzwWW/JOtp =fsV5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----