Here are a list of things I have seen that you may mean when you say "Zope 3". I'm sure I missed several: 1. Whatever is included in the Zope 3 tgz that you download. 2. All the packages included in the Zope 3 KGS. (Should be the same as 1, if I understand correctly.) 3. 1 or 2 minus the ZMI. 4. The zope.app.publication publisher. 5. A loose set of packages starting with zope.*, zc.* and z3c.* 6. A strictly defined (by the Zope Toolkit KGS) set of packages starting with zope.*, zc.* and z3c.* that is central and common to Zope 3 in the sense of 1 or 2, and also Grok and Zope 2. 7. Technologies that you use when you develop with the packages in 5 and 6. I propose that the name Zope 3 applies *only* to 1 and 2. If future versions of 1 or 2 gets released without the ZMI (as discussed in other threads), then of course 1, 2 and 3 is the same. Opinions? -- Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64
On Apr 15, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
Here are a list of things I have seen that you may mean when you say "Zope 3". I'm sure I missed several:
1. Whatever is included in the Zope 3 tgz that you download.
2. All the packages included in the Zope 3 KGS. (Should be the same as 1, if I understand correctly.)
3. 1 or 2 minus the ZMI.
4. The zope.app.publication publisher.
5. A loose set of packages starting with zope.*, zc.* and z3c.*
6. A strictly defined (by the Zope Toolkit KGS) set of packages starting with zope.*, zc.* and z3c.* that is central and common to Zope 3 in the sense of 1 or 2, and also Grok and Zope 2.
7. Technologies that you use when you develop with the packages in 5 and 6.
I propose that the name Zope 3 applies *only* to 1 and 2. If future versions of 1 or 2 gets released without the ZMI (as discussed in other threads), then of course 1, 2 and 3 is the same.
Opinions?
I've been away on a vacation of sorts, and find myself happy to not have been around for this firestorm. A few observations. - I very much agree with Lennart's observation that the definition of "Zope 3" is not clear. - It may have been a mistake to use the name "Zope 3", but it is done now, and done a *long* time ago. Trying to outright kill it feels like thrashing. - Moreover, because *we* don't know what "Zope 3" means, I'm afraid users outside viewers are going to easily misinterpret any kind of message framed in the terms of "Zope 3's death" or "abandonment" or whatever. How are they supposed to know what it means? I was concerned about Tim Hoffman's statement in the long "who wants to maintain..." thread: "It seems from all the discussion of late that we might of chosen a architectural dead end (though I don't think so)." We're not declaring the Zope 3 libraries (toolkit, whatever, bah) a dead end; far from it. But how easy it is to make a sound bite from this discussion into basically that message? "Zope 3: architectural dead end." I don't care for that, myself, nor do I find it accurate. This message seems like a reasonable start to me: "Zope 3 has become focused on supporting frameworks and applications, rather than trying to be one itself. It is now called the Zope Toolkit. Parts of it are used by Zope 2, Plone, Grok, Repoze.bfg, and by many other different applications and frameworks." That message implies two things to me. First, to start with, this is just a rename. Zope 3, as defined by the KGS, becomes the Zope Toolkit. Second, the "Zope Toolkit" is about supporting other frameworks. That means that it is reasonable to expect that the packages and the parts of packages that were about the ZMI will quite possibly die a typical open source death of not enough people caring anymore. I don't think trying to guess which parts or packages will die is a particularly useful exercise. The community will support what the community supports...as usual. This is open source. You're gambling that enough other people will be there with you to make it worthwhile, and you may be required to step up with money or talent or energy to make that happen. So, again, in sum, I propose that this discussion should simply be reduced to a rename to start with: Zope 3, as defined by the KGS -> Zope Toolkit. The software switch that this name change implies has started quite some time ago, with the eggification, and will continue in its natural and usual open-source course. Gary
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 06:06, Gary Poster <gary.poster@gmail.com> wrote:
So, again, in sum, I propose that this discussion should simply be reduced to a rename to start with: Zope 3, as defined by the KGS -> Zope Toolkit.
As I understand it (but Martijn may correct me) the Zope Toolkit will have it's own KGS which is significantly smaller than the Zope 3 KGS, and not useable as an app server by itself. I would like to see a renaming of the Zope 3 KGS, but not to Zope Toolkit, as it's a subset. -- Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 06:06, Gary Poster <gary.poster@gmail.com> wrote:
So, again, in sum, I propose that this discussion should simply be reduced to a rename to start with: Zope 3, as defined by the KGS -> Zope Toolkit.
As I understand it (but Martijn may correct me) the Zope Toolkit will have it's own KGS which is significantly smaller than the Zope 3 KGS, and not useable as an app server by itself. I would like to see a renaming of the Zope 3 KGS, but not to Zope Toolkit, as it's a subset.
Yes, the Zope 3 KGS is a superset of the Zope Toolkit KGS. I'll note that the Zope 3 KGS locks down more than is traditionally considered "Zope 3 proper", such as z3c.form. I don't see a problem with this though. Eventually I'd like us to develop a pattern of mixing and matching KGSes, where you'd have the z3c.form KGS next to the Zope Toolkit KGS. My initial goal is to at least give some time for people to crystallize a new concept of what "Zope 3" is in the light of the Zope Toolkit. Gary's formulation reflects the idea that the Zope Toolkit has the role to support people to build things (frameworks, apps) on it. Is Zope 3 as people think of it really nothing more than the Zope toolkit? We'll be finding out over time, I guess. Whether "Zope 3", the "whatever remains when the Zope Toolkit is taken away form it", should be renamed to something else is another discussion. I'd just like to say that changing or dumping a name is hard and fraught with risks. I'd to give "Zope 3" whatever it is a bit more chance to organize itself and define itself. Perhaps it can't, and that'll be fine too. If "Zope 3" hasn't organized itself in, say, half a year, independently from the Zope Toolkit, in a way like Zope 2 and Grok are organized, we can conclude then that the concept of that "whole" is dead and take the appropriate action. But perhaps history will go very differently. I put a mark in my calendar for October to reconsider the future of the name "Zope 3" then. Regards, Martijn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Martijn Faassen wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 06:06, Gary Poster <gary.poster@gmail.com> wrote:
So, again, in sum, I propose that this discussion should simply be reduced to a rename to start with: Zope 3, as defined by the KGS -> Zope Toolkit. As I understand it (but Martijn may correct me) the Zope Toolkit will have it's own KGS which is significantly smaller than the Zope 3 KGS, and not useable as an app server by itself. I would like to see a renaming of the Zope 3 KGS, but not to Zope Toolkit, as it's a subset.
Yes, the Zope 3 KGS is a superset of the Zope Toolkit KGS.
I'll note that the Zope 3 KGS locks down more than is traditionally considered "Zope 3 proper", such as z3c.form. I don't see a problem with this though. Eventually I'd like us to develop a pattern of mixing and matching KGSes, where you'd have the z3c.form KGS next to the Zope Toolkit KGS.
My initial goal is to at least give some time for people to crystallize a new concept of what "Zope 3" is in the light of the Zope Toolkit. Gary's formulation reflects the idea that the Zope Toolkit has the role to support people to build things (frameworks, apps) on it. Is Zope 3 as people think of it really nothing more than the Zope toolkit? We'll be finding out over time, I guess.
Whether "Zope 3", the "whatever remains when the Zope Toolkit is taken away form it", should be renamed to something else is another discussion. I'd just like to say that changing or dumping a name is hard and fraught with risks. I'd to give "Zope 3" whatever it is a bit more chance to organize itself and define itself. Perhaps it can't, and that'll be fine too.
If "Zope 3" hasn't organized itself in, say, half a year, independently from the Zope Toolkit, in a way like Zope 2 and Grok are organized, we can conclude then that the concept of that "whole" is dead and take the appropriate action. But perhaps history will go very differently.
I put a mark in my calendar for October to reconsider the future of the name "Zope 3" then.
I would rather that we stop pushing the "Zope 3" brand now, and let the interested folks come up with a new name for set(Z3KGS) - set(ZTKKGS). The brand is actively harmful / confusing (it implies a replacement strategy which hasn't been real since about 2003); continuing to use it in the present tense will undercut the other, more viable brands (Grok, Zope2). We can continue to refer to "Zope 3" in the past tense, to explain how ZTK and the other brands relate to the bigger codebase, but we should quit promoting it. 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 iD8DBQFJ51Mw+gerLs4ltQ4RAlAGAKDN+JFiQnWhMiT81ciIhZc4dQu/PACfcvwp zXK1TChaevyPWJ3umscF0ik= =y/zx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thursday 16 April 2009, Tres Seaver wrote:
I would rather that we stop pushing the "Zope 3" brand now,
I would rather keep the name Zope 3. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter Web Software Design, Development and Training Google me. "Zope Stephan Richter"
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 04:43, Stephan Richter <srichter@cosmos.phy.tufts.edu> wrote:
On Thursday 16 April 2009, Tres Seaver wrote:
I would rather that we stop pushing the "Zope 3" brand now,
I would rather keep the name Zope 3.
That's too bad, as it means that after all this discussion were are back to status quo on the branding situation: Complete and utter confusion. Except possibly that we now with the toolkit are in an even worse position, as it is evident from this thread that we get confusion not only between Zope 2 and Zope 3, Zope and Zope corp, but also between Zope 3 and the Zope Toolkit. If we keep the name Zope 3, we are still in that confused situation. It will make it hard to get more people to use the Zope technologies, no matter which variant we are talking about. Obviously, as the Zope 3 release manager it is ultimately up to you do decide what you call the releases, but I thought I would just do this last pleading for getting us out of the branding swamp we are in. -- Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64
How about starting with "Zope 3 Toolkit" and then moving to "Zope Toolkit" after a year or so. This "evolutionary" approach may address some of the issues that have been raised: - there would be no sudden disappearance of "Zope 3", eliminating the idea that the "Zope 3" concept is an evolutionary dead-end - it would use the "Zope 3" brand to introduce the concept of the "Toolkit" This approach is used in the retail industry whenever a brand is being repositioned and the brand owner wants to move as many "customers" as possible to the new brand. It retains the value/goodwill associated with the old brand while building value/goodwill for the new brand. Jonathan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lennart Regebro" <regebro@gmail.com> To: <srichter@cosmos.phy.tufts.edu> Cc: "Tres Seaver" <tseaver@palladion.com>; "Martijn Faassen" <faassen@startifact.com>; <zope-dev@zope.org> Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 5:00 AM Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] Defining Zope 3.
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 04:43, Stephan Richter <srichter@cosmos.phy.tufts.edu> wrote:
On Thursday 16 April 2009, Tres Seaver wrote:
I would rather that we stop pushing the "Zope 3" brand now,
I would rather keep the name Zope 3.
That's too bad, as it means that after all this discussion were are back to status quo on the branding situation: Complete and utter confusion. Except possibly that we now with the toolkit are in an even worse position, as it is evident from this thread that we get confusion not only between Zope 2 and Zope 3, Zope and Zope corp, but also between Zope 3 and the Zope Toolkit.
If we keep the name Zope 3, we are still in that confused situation. It will make it hard to get more people to use the Zope technologies, no matter which variant we are talking about.
Obviously, as the Zope 3 release manager it is ultimately up to you do decide what you call the releases, but I thought I would just do this last pleading for getting us out of the branding swamp we are in.
-- Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64 _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.0/2066 - Release Date: 04/18/09 09:55:00
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jonathan (dev101) wrote:
How about starting with "Zope 3 Toolkit" and then moving to "Zope Toolkit" after a year or so.
This "evolutionary" approach may address some of the issues that have been raised:
- there would be no sudden disappearance of "Zope 3", eliminating the idea that the "Zope 3" concept is an evolutionary dead-end
- it would use the "Zope 3" brand to introduce the concept of the "Toolkit"
This approach is used in the retail industry whenever a brand is being repositioned and the brand owner wants to move as many "customers" as possible to the new brand. It retains the value/goodwill associated with the old brand while building value/goodwill for the new brand.
- -1. As a branding choice (as opposed to a technology), "Zope 3" *is* a dead-end: it implies a strategy (replacing Zope 2) which we no longer believe in. I think the consequences of the brand confusion are hard for those uf us "inside" to estimate, but they are far from trivial. Continuing to "push" that brand is confusing to outsiders, who don't understand why anyone would still be using "Zope 2" four years after the first release of "Zope 3". The folks who are using "Zope 3" can certainly cope with a split / rename. 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 iD8DBQFJ6zVm+gerLs4ltQ4RAh5MAJ4vBgXc+fWmOYt2o11FIDs4gGDUQgCglSiz 4C3D5tlPvO6DmymcPJL/h3o= =SnlJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sunday 19 April 2009, Tres Seaver wrote:
-1. As a branding choice (as opposed to a technology), "Zope 3" *is* a dead-end: it implies a strategy (replacing Zope 2) which we no longer believe in. I think the consequences of the brand confusion are hard for those uf us "inside" to estimate, but they are far from trivial.
I never communicated to anyone that I believe that Zope 3 is a successor of Zope 2. Other people pushed that message.
Continuing to "push" that brand is confusing to outsiders, who don't understand why anyone would still be using "Zope 2" four years after the first release of "Zope 3". The folks who are using "Zope 3" can certainly cope with a split / rename.
That's easy for you to say, since you have no vested interest. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter Web Software Design, Development and Training Google me. "Zope Stephan Richter"
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Sunday 19 April 2009, Tres Seaver wrote:
-1. As a branding choice (as opposed to a technology), "Zope 3" *is* a dead-end: it implies a strategy (replacing Zope 2) which we no longer believe in. I think the consequences of the brand confusion are hard for those uf us "inside" to estimate, but they are far from trivial.
I never communicated to anyone that I believe that Zope 3 is a successor of Zope 2. Other people pushed that message.
That message has been out there from the start, no matter how it arose. One way this conclusion was reached was the obvious 3 versus 2. We need to fix that situation.
Continuing to "push" that brand is confusing to outsiders, who don't understand why anyone would still be using "Zope 2" four years after the first release of "Zope 3". The folks who are using "Zope 3" can certainly cope with a split / rename.
That's easy for you to say, since you have no vested interest.
Stephan, I do think we should seriously consider renaming Zope 3 to something else. But not to Zope Toolkit; we should of course say that a lot of the code in Zope 3 moved to the Toolkit, but we shouldn't just get rid of the rest of the concept, no matter how vague that is right now. If there is to be a new name for Zope 3 and the people involved in it can commit to it, I can write a short piece of text that describes what is going on for the upcoming story site, and we can coordinate on communicating the message without the community. Even without a new name I can write such a message, but it's going to be harder for people to understand what's going on, as people frequently don't read a lot (and why should they?). Getting everybody on message will be crazily hard given the intense disagreements that exist on the way forward, but it is also the only way forward out of this mess and towards resolving the disagreements. Regards, Martijn
Am Montag, 20. April 2009 09:35 schrieb Martijn Faassen:
Stephan Richter wrote:
... I never communicated to anyone that I believe that Zope 3 is a successor of Zope 2. Other people pushed that message.
That message has been out there from the start, no matter how it arose. One way this conclusion was reached was the obvious 3 versus 2. We need to fix that situation.
I was following the discussion from the beginning and was all the time thinking about the right time for me to step in, seems this now has come, especially as... last night... how to tell the story... Hm, OK, let's try: Last night I had a strange contact with an extraterrestrian Zivilization that somehow, I think via a 5D transgalactic intertemporal loop (they called it a Z-loop), got access to the slides of the 2014 conference of the European Zope User Group (EZUG, or GUZE as it is called in France) in Pariz. And, believe it or not, there was a keynote by Martijn Faassen about the last five years of Zope's history! I could only manage to get a quick glance at the slides (a lot of slides with only little text and without any pictures) before the communication line broke down. So I can only give you a short summary of what I remember: Due to the good work of the Zope Toolkit Steering Group and many other members of the Zope community the Zope Toolkit flourished and was used for the development of a lot of Zope-based applications; also more and more of the Zope 2 code base had been refactored and ported to use the Zope Toolkit, always keeping backward compatibility, of course, and backed by informative deprecation messages. This culminated in the the use of zope.security for Zope 2 and even the replacement of the Zope 2 publisher by that from Zope 3. The Zope 3 ZMI was still alive at that time (due to the good work of Yusei Tahara and others); then (I think it was about 2012 or 2013) somebody replaced the Rotterdam skin by something that looked exactly like the Plone 5.2 standard theme - whereupon the Plone people (with Plone 6) fully switched to Zope 3, thus getting rid of the last parts of Plone configuration that needed the ugly Zope 2 ZMI, simply by using the anyway superior Zope 3 ZMI. In parallel someone - I could not read his full name, I think I remember the first letter of his first name as "D", but it may also have been an "A" - extracted all Zope2-specific code (especially Acquisition but also a lot of other stuff) to a namespace package called "zepo" (an acronym for "Zope's Eternally Persisting Origins") so that things suddenly changed: Now Zope 3 was "the" Zope application server, while Zope 2 was still there for those who wanted or needed it, just by using the Zope Toolkit together with the zepo Packages (which, by the way, also contained ZClasses again). So Zope 2.39 was de facto replaced by Zepo 1.0 (which still was branded as "Zope 2"), and Zope 3..., hm, see below... So finally came true what was never intended, thoroughly denied, but nevertheless for some unknown reason believed by almost everyone: That Zope 3 would be the natural successor of Zope 2. The only sad aspect of this wonderful story were the ongoing "Zope Naming Flame Wars" that started to rage fiercely among the members of the Zope community: While some just wanted to keep the "Zope 3" brand (it was version 3.6 btw) others wanted to call it "Zope 4" or "Zope 5" (you know: 2 + 3 = 5), or even came up with new names like "Phoenix" (for obvious reasons) or "Ezop" (some strange acronym; I do not remember what it meant). Some even wanted to call it just "Zope" - a name that was considered extremely confusing by others. So that's my story. @Martijn: do you still have access to the PSU time machine? It would be great if you could verify this somehow. Or maybe you can even get clearer and more consistent information... Helmut
Helmut Merz wrote: [snip story]
So that's my story.
@Martijn: do you still have access to the PSU time machine? It would be great if you could verify this somehow. Or maybe you can even get clearer and more consistent information...
:) We need to learn more about this Zivilisation! I hope you will inform us if you receive any future mysterious messages. Unfortunately I lost access to the PSU time machine last year because I sent it back to my former self of 2006 to use it there to go back into the past. It's lost in an n-complexity infinite temporal recursion. There is some hope that advanced aquisition paradox engineering could lift it out again, but it hasn't worked yet. Regards, Martijn
Am Montag, 20. April 2009 16:11 schrieb Martijn Faassen:
Helmut Merz wrote: [snip story]
So that's my story.
@Martijn: do you still have access to the PSU time machine? It would be great if you could verify this somehow. Or maybe you can even get clearer and more consistent information...
:)
We need to learn more about this Zivilisation! I hope you will inform us if you receive any future mysterious messages.
Hm, I don't think I'd like to contact them again - they look like this: http://www.ff2d.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/caveman.jpg Though I would be curious to find out what will happen to TTW development...
Unfortunately I lost access to the PSU time machine last year because I sent it back to my former self of 2006 to use it there to go back into the past. It's lost in an n-complexity infinite temporal recursion. There is some hope that advanced aquisition paradox engineering could lift it out again, but it hasn't worked yet.
For A-APE you would have to employ XMMP (eXtended Multidimensional Monkey Patching). Or you could just remove all acquisition-related stuff (hint: put it into zepo.acquisition) and reboot the universe. Helmut
On 4/20/09 3:35 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Sunday 19 April 2009, Tres Seaver wrote:
-1. As a branding choice (as opposed to a technology), "Zope 3" *is* a dead-end: it implies a strategy (replacing Zope 2) which we no longer believe in. I think the consequences of the brand confusion are hard for those uf us "inside" to estimate, but they are far from trivial. I never communicated to anyone that I believe that Zope 3 is a successor of Zope 2. Other people pushed that message.
That message has been out there from the start, no matter how it arose. One way this conclusion was reached was the obvious 3 versus 2. We need to fix that situation.
I think Martijn's right on this point. FWIW, there was a mailing list setup to discuss this when it came up in Jan 2003: http://archives.free.net.ph/mindex/zope2-migration@20021201.050000.00000000.... Here's a useful thread showing a dialog between Seb Bacon, Jim, and me: http://archives.free.net.ph/message/20030214.073424.f58e0929.en.html We have arrived at a different result, of course, but it is still useful to agree on the background. We also had the discussion when the decision was made to drop the X in Zope 3X, without fulfilling one part of the bullet points for why there was an X. Stephan, I agree that you didn't communicate that message. But I think it is pretty easy to show that Zope communicated that message, officially and unofficially. --Paul
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Sunday 19 April 2009, Tres Seaver wrote:
-1. As a branding choice (as opposed to a technology), "Zope 3" *is* a dead-end: it implies a strategy (replacing Zope 2) which we no longer believe in. I think the consequences of the brand confusion are hard for those uf us "inside" to estimate, but they are far from trivial.
I never communicated to anyone that I believe that Zope 3 is a successor of Zope 2. Other people pushed that message.
It's not a message that needs pushing. In virtually every other piece of software ever created, when a version 3 comes out, it's meant to supersede version 2. No amount of navel-gazing is going to make that less confusing to people who are not happy to read the 40 messages of nuanced debate a day this list has produced lately. Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 15:02, Jonathan (dev101) <dev101@magma.ca> wrote:
How about starting with "Zope 3 Toolkit" and then moving to "Zope Toolkit" after a year or so.
It's quite clear that nobody outside the community knows what Zope 3 is, and withing the community everybody disagrees on what Zope 3 is. The Zope Toolkit is not Zope 3. I do not see any purpose in blurring the lines between the Zope Toolkit and Zope 3, as that will only mean that nobody will know what the Zope Toolkit is either. That is not helpful.
- there would be no sudden disappearance of "Zope 3", eliminating the idea that the "Zope 3" concept is an evolutionary dead-end
The only sudden disappearance of Zope 3 will be if nobody maintains it. By now it's clear that it will be maintained, hence it will not suddenly disappear. This is therefore a non-issue.
- it would use the "Zope 3" brand to introduce the concept of the "Toolkit"
Zope 3 is an unbrand. It would not introduce it, it would scare people away.
This approach is used in the retail industry whenever a brand is being repositioned and the brand owner wants to move as many "customers" as possible to the new brand.
Zope Toolkit is not a rebranding of Zope 3.
It retains the value/goodwill associated with the old brand while building value/goodwill for the new brand.
This assumes there is goodwill to move over. I'm getting really tired of this discussion, and also that nobody comment either positively or negatively on what I write, but just seems to ignore it, which is frustrating, as it makes me think I'm completely right but nobody gets it. ;-) I therefore will go with Martijns suggestion of letting the issue rest for a couple of months. I will then buy him and the rest of the Foundation Board drinks until they do what I say and make a pronunciation on the naming issue according to my suggestions. :-D -- Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64
<snip> I'm getting really tired of this discussion, and also that nobody comment either positively or negatively on what I write, but just seems to ignore it, which is frustrating, as it makes me think I'm completely right but nobody gets it. ;-) I therefore will go with Martijns suggestion of letting the issue rest for a couple of months. I will then buy him and the rest of the Foundation Board drinks until they do what I say and make a pronunciation on the naming issue according to my suggestions. :-D -- Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok </snip> I was going to try to further explain my compromise which tried to move in the direction you are attempting, but upon reflection decided that you are completely right and that no-one else gets it (we are all as dumb as stones), so instead... good-bye. Jonathan
Hey Jonathan, Jonathan (dev101) wrote:
I was going to try to further explain my compromise which tried to move in the direction you are attempting, but upon reflection decided that you are completely right and that no-one else gets it (we are all as dumb as stones), so instead... good-bye.
I think you caught the brunt of Lennart's rant here even though he wasn't directing it at you mostly. I do appreciate your contributions to the discussion, even though I'll happily disagree with it. I certainly don't think anyone in this thread is as dumb as stones or dumb in general. Regards, Martijn
On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 16:32 +0200, Lennart Regebro wrote:
I'm getting really tired of this discussion, and also that nobody comment either positively or negatively on what I write, but just seems to ignore it, which is frustrating, as it makes me think I'm completely right but nobody gets it. ;-) I therefore will go with Martijns suggestion of letting the issue rest for a couple of months. I will then buy him and the rest of the Foundation Board drinks until they do what I say and make a pronunciation on the naming issue according to my suggestions. :-D
Silence is assent. I've been lurking and reading up on mails from the last two weeks. I'm really happy you're taking the time to state your thoughts and I find them good input for my own thoughts, so although I didn't comment and am lagging, please note (again) that I'm happy for having you participate. Christian -- Christian Theune · ct@gocept.com gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 7 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development
On Sunday 19 April 2009, Jonathan (dev101) wrote:
How about starting with "Zope 3 Toolkit" and then moving to "Zope Toolkit" after a year or so.
The Toolkit is not the same as Zope 3. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter Web Software Design, Development and Training Google me. "Zope Stephan Richter"
Jonathan (dev101) wrote:
How about starting with "Zope 3 Toolkit" and then moving to "Zope Toolkit" after a year or so.
I'll repeat it again: the Zope Toolkit is not intended to fulfill the same role as Zope 3. You imply something like that here. I know that the Zope Toolkit isn't the same as Zope 3 as that's how I designed it to be. It'd underlying Zope 3 just like it's underlying Grok and Zope 2. These are not at all different from each other in the relationship to the toolkit. It seems to be a terribly hard message to get across. I don't know whether that's a flaw in the message or inertia in the community, but whatever it is, we need to take it into account in our communication. Regards, Martijn
Hey, Martijn Faassen wrote: [snip]
I put a mark in my calendar for October to reconsider the future of the name "Zope 3" then.
Given the responses to this thread I'm starting to lean towards pushing the message to the outside that Zope 3 has become Zope Toolkit, has a different focus, basically just as Gary stated, and really push this message internally (on zope-dev) as well. I'll think it over over the weekend (and discuss it with Christian Theune, as we're near to each other in rl then). If we want to do this right we need to come up with a good way to get the message out. We've traditionally not been very good at this form of communication, so hopefully this is also something we can do better in the New Order. We might want to delay this external communication to when we are in the alpha stage for the Zope Toolkit 1.0 release, however. Regards, Martijn
Martijn Faassen wrote:
If we want to do this right we need to come up with a good way to get the message out.
I think the only way you're going to manage to do that, is if you have a website with a clear and unambiguous message on it. It's like deja-vu all over again... Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book
Martijn Faassen schrieb:
Hey,
Martijn Faassen wrote: [snip]
I put a mark in my calendar for October to reconsider the future of the name "Zope 3" then.
Given the responses to this thread I'm starting to lean towards pushing the message to the outside that Zope 3 has become Zope Toolkit, has a different focus, basically just as Gary stated, and really push this message internally (on zope-dev) as well.
I'll think it over over the weekend (and discuss it with Christian Theune, as we're near to each other in rl then).
Pushing this message inside the zope community is perfect. But I don't see a need to communicate to outsiders that Zope 3 has become the Zope Toolkit. This will be confusing to outsiders. They don't have to think about what Zope 3 is/was. As the discussions showed even participants of the zope developers mailing list have slightly different views on Zope3. We can safely market the "Zope Toolkit" with it's features and qualities. At the same time we should push everything related to Zope 2|3 (maybe a bit clearer as "the Zope 2|3 Application Server") into the background. Insiders will find it. For outsiders we can add a warning that our focus is the Zope Toolkit, there are web frameworks out there that new developers can use, but the Zope 2/3 Application Servers are no longer recommended.
If we want to do this right we need to come up with a good way to get the message out. We've traditionally not been very good at this form of communication, so hopefully this is also something we can do better in the New Order. We might want to delay this external communication to when we are in the alpha stage for the Zope Toolkit 1.0 release, however.
Communicate to outsiders what we have, not what it should have been, is a start. Zope Toolkit 1.0 sounds great. Whatever naming we choose, it will always have one precondition to succeed: a new zope.org that clearly communicates things with the right priority. ..Carsten Btw: Somebody should change "Zope Framework" to "Zope Toolkit" on zope.org and remove the version number v3.5 from the Zope Toolkit documentation.
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 14:47, Carsten Senger <senger@rehfisch.de> wrote:
Pushing this message inside the zope community is perfect. But I don't see a need to communicate to outsiders that Zope 3 has become the Zope Toolkit. This will be confusing to outsiders. They don't have to think about what Zope 3 is/was. As the discussions showed even participants of the zope developers mailing list have slightly different views on Zope3.
Now *I* am confused. I thought the idea was ti push it to outsiders. Pushing it inside the Zope community would contradict what actually is happening, and the community have the ability to understand what is happening, so coming with a contra-factual story within the community would be very confusing, I think.
We can safely market the "Zope Toolkit" with it's features and qualities. At the same time we should push everything related to Zope 2|3 (maybe a bit clearer as "the Zope 2|3 Application Server") into the background. Insiders will find it. For outsiders we can add a warning that our focus is the Zope Toolkit, there are web frameworks out there that new developers can use, but the Zope 2/3 Application Servers are no longer recommended.
This makes sense. -- Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64
Lennart Regebro schrieb:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 14:47, Carsten Senger <senger@rehfisch.de> wrote:
Pushing this message inside the zope community is perfect. But I don't see a need to communicate to outsiders that Zope 3 has become the Zope Toolkit. This will be confusing to outsiders. They don't have to think about what Zope 3 is/was. As the discussions showed even participants of the zope developers mailing list have slightly different views on Zope3.
Now *I* am confused. I thought the idea was ti push it to outsiders. Pushing it inside the Zope community would contradict what actually is happening, and the community have the ability to understand what is happening, so coming with a contra-factual story within the community would be very confusing, I think.
It's my opinion that we should not communicate to outsiders that Zope 3 has become the Zope Toolkit. I'm for simplifying it even more and tell that the focus of the Zope Community it the Zope Toolkit. It would be complicated cause we still have Zope 3 the application server. We have to describe there why it still exists (to outsiders) and how to get it now for the people that need it in their existing applications. Or we have to tell the insiders that we now have ZopeAppServerKGSwhatever, something that they have known as Zope 3. But it's not Zope 3 anymore cause that's now the Zope Toolkit. Communicating that we have to offer the Zope Toolkit with it's features is easier and less confusing to outsiders than mentioning Zope 3. But I didn't want to start a new naming discussion :-(. [...] ..Carsten
Hey, Carsten Senger wrote: [snip]
Btw: Somebody should change "Zope Framework" to "Zope Toolkit" on zope.org and remove the version number v3.5 from the Zope Toolkit documentation.
Could you fix the Zope Toolkit documentation and change it to 1.0? It's in SVN. It'd be very nice if you could also hunt down the people who do zope.org and rename it there. I didn't even know it was linked from there yet. Regards, Martijn
I'am an almost passive reader of this list and typical 'user', or lets say, software I write is a consumer of all this useful Zope-SOMETHING. I observed your discussion and read all the threads and I wasnt sure all the time if its the right direction. Writing code is better than discussing names and declaring things dead or alive. I think Gary boiled it down a bit. Am Thu, 16 Apr 2009 00:06:41 -0400 schrieb Gary Poster: [...]
This message seems like a reasonable start to me: "Zope 3 has become focused on supporting frameworks and applications, rather than trying to be one itself. It is now called the Zope Toolkit. Parts of it are used by Zope 2, Plone, Grok, Repoze.bfg, and by many other different applications and frameworks."
I.e we're using parts of the Zope Toolkit for the next generation code- generator (agx, successor of archgenxml), which is really out of web application scope. Why not point out zope is a powerful architectural choice? Using Zope Toolkits core parts is a way to write code in Python (ZCA et al as a core-architecure). Other parts are offering a bunch of interfaces: solutions to common use-cases and convinience. All the code inside the toolkit fits together, which is in my opinion the major advantage and elevates programmers productivity a lot (even if its a challenge for beginners to get started with the puzzle). [...]
Second, the "Zope Toolkit" is about supporting other frameworks. That means that it is reasonable to expect that the packages and the parts of packages that were about the ZMI will quite possibly die a typical open source death of not enough people caring anymore.
I don't think trying to guess which parts or packages will die is a particularly useful exercise. The community will support what the community supports...as usual. This is open source. You're gambling that enough other people will be there with you to make it worthwhile, and you may be required to step up with money or talent or energy to make that happen.
I agree completly. In my opinion declaring things dead in a free software eco-system is not the usal way. Things are supported if they are used and those users care about the code. A low barrier to new contributors helps a lot. I.e. in Plone we have a tiny set of core components covered by the Plone- Foundation. Becoming contributor is easy (compared to zope), but also needs a ontributor agreement. But most of the code resides outside the plone-subversion. It lives in the swamp named collective (also provided by the Plone Foundation). Everybody can get access within minutes and may modify anything in there, real anarchy. From a programmers POV the collective is like normal Wikipedia articles where everybody can edit. But also Wikipedia has more closed articles, which compares to the more protected plone-subversion. This works very well. In collective are many dead-projects. But sometimes one get just picked up. I would divide the Zope Toolkit in two parts: (1) The real core which has to be mature. I doubt its all current 50-70 packages (dont ask me which parts this are, most of the active authors here are knowing it better) (2) The more loose ends where more agility is needed. Plus outside- toolkit stuff like ZMI, application-server-installers etc. whatever the community-members are willed to support. Part two should have a real low barrier for new supporters, without contributor agreement, w/o need of ZPL. just my 0.02 Eur. -- Jens W. Klein - Klein & Partner KEG - BlueDynamics Alliance
Jens W. Klein wrote: [snip]
I would divide the Zope Toolkit in two parts: (1) The real core which has to be mature. I doubt its all current 50-70 packages (dont ask me which parts this are, most of the active authors here are knowing it better) (2) The more loose ends where more agility is needed. Plus outside- toolkit stuff like ZMI, application-server-installers etc. whatever the community-members are willed to support.
I used the time machine to make sure that these concepts existed all along: http://docs.zope.org/zopetoolkit/about/coreextra.html It makes the point that "extra" libraries are not in the toolkit. This is to make the maintenance burden for the toolkit maintainers (me among others) less big, and to give more freedom to people who want to build libraries that build on the toolkit in some way. Regards, Martijn
Hey, Gary Poster wrote: [snip]
So, again, in sum, I propose that this discussion should simply be reduced to a rename to start with: Zope 3, as defined by the KGS -> Zope Toolkit. The software switch that this name change implies has started quite some time ago, with the eggification, and will continue in its natural and usual open-source course.
My concern with this is the implication that the Zope Toolkit is something you install by itself and can get started with, even as a newcomer. We do have a zope3-users list after all. This implication at least half-hearted surrounded Zope 3, even though it appears today no one is interested in supporting that implication. My other concern is that the Zope Toolkit doesn't want to take on too much, and renaming Zope 3 to the Zope Toolkit may imply that it must take on a lot. I want to actively looks at reducing the Zope Toolkit's codebase. Perhaps that's limited to throwing out the ZMI and otherwise it is the wrong goal. Nonetheless I think we need a bit more aggressive evolution than we've had in a while, which will likely include throwing out packages at some point. It's pointless to discuss which packages will disappear now, but I do want the Zope Toolkit to have the ability to make *choices* (while not blocking alternatives outside of the toolkit). We need choices as we only have limited resources. This is why my suggestion is to retain the name Zope 3 for now, but just spread the message that it's a formulation of the Zope Toolkit with a focus on backwards compatibility (this seems to have the community's support). De-empathize Zope 3 from now on, sure. Declare the term "gone" (either due to a rename or due to it dying), no. Regards, Martijn
Thank you for saying this so well. +1 Jim On Apr 16, 2009, at 12:06 AM, Gary Poster wrote:
On Apr 15, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
Here are a list of things I have seen that you may mean when you say "Zope 3". I'm sure I missed several:
1. Whatever is included in the Zope 3 tgz that you download.
2. All the packages included in the Zope 3 KGS. (Should be the same as 1, if I understand correctly.)
3. 1 or 2 minus the ZMI.
4. The zope.app.publication publisher.
5. A loose set of packages starting with zope.*, zc.* and z3c.*
6. A strictly defined (by the Zope Toolkit KGS) set of packages starting with zope.*, zc.* and z3c.* that is central and common to Zope 3 in the sense of 1 or 2, and also Grok and Zope 2.
7. Technologies that you use when you develop with the packages in 5 and 6.
I propose that the name Zope 3 applies *only* to 1 and 2. If future versions of 1 or 2 gets released without the ZMI (as discussed in other threads), then of course 1, 2 and 3 is the same.
Opinions?
I've been away on a vacation of sorts, and find myself happy to not have been around for this firestorm.
A few observations.
- I very much agree with Lennart's observation that the definition of "Zope 3" is not clear.
- It may have been a mistake to use the name "Zope 3", but it is done now, and done a *long* time ago. Trying to outright kill it feels like thrashing.
- Moreover, because *we* don't know what "Zope 3" means, I'm afraid users outside viewers are going to easily misinterpret any kind of message framed in the terms of "Zope 3's death" or "abandonment" or whatever. How are they supposed to know what it means?
I was concerned about Tim Hoffman's statement in the long "who wants to maintain..." thread: "It seems from all the discussion of late that we might of chosen a architectural dead end (though I don't think so)." We're not declaring the Zope 3 libraries (toolkit, whatever, bah) a dead end; far from it. But how easy it is to make a sound bite from this discussion into basically that message? "Zope 3: architectural dead end." I don't care for that, myself, nor do I find it accurate.
This message seems like a reasonable start to me: "Zope 3 has become focused on supporting frameworks and applications, rather than trying to be one itself. It is now called the Zope Toolkit. Parts of it are used by Zope 2, Plone, Grok, Repoze.bfg, and by many other different applications and frameworks."
That message implies two things to me.
First, to start with, this is just a rename. Zope 3, as defined by the KGS, becomes the Zope Toolkit.
Second, the "Zope Toolkit" is about supporting other frameworks. That means that it is reasonable to expect that the packages and the parts of packages that were about the ZMI will quite possibly die a typical open source death of not enough people caring anymore.
I don't think trying to guess which parts or packages will die is a particularly useful exercise. The community will support what the community supports...as usual. This is open source. You're gambling that enough other people will be there with you to make it worthwhile, and you may be required to step up with money or talent or energy to make that happen.
So, again, in sum, I propose that this discussion should simply be reduced to a rename to start with: Zope 3, as defined by the KGS -> Zope Toolkit. The software switch that this name change implies has started quite some time ago, with the eggification, and will continue in its natural and usual open-source course.
Gary
_______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
-- Jim Fulton Zope Corporation
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Gary Poster <gary.poster@gmail.com> wrote:
This message seems like a reasonable start to me: "Zope 3 has become focused on supporting frameworks and applications, rather than trying to be one itself. It is now called the Zope Toolkit. Parts of it are used by Zope 2, Plone, Grok, Repoze.bfg, and by many other different applications and frameworks."
+lots
I don't think trying to guess which parts or packages will die is a particularly useful exercise.
Indeed. -- Benji York Senior Software Engineer Zope Corporation
This message seems like a reasonable start to me: "Zope 3 has become focused on supporting frameworks and applications, rather than trying to be one itself. It is now called the Zope Toolkit. Parts of it are used by Zope 2, Plone, Grok, Repoze.bfg, and by many other different applications and frameworks."
I also like this message because it is simple and positive enough for everyone inside and outside the dev community to understand and buy into. Insiders know that the Toolkit going forward will be much more focussed than old Zope 3 was, but outsiders don't need those details; outsiders certainly won't understand subtle intra-project renamings and dyings. If some of those details are positive selling points, they should appear in the official release notes and announcements. Best - Simon
Hey, Simon Michael wrote: [snip]
Insiders know that the Toolkit going forward will be much more focussed than old Zope 3 was, but outsiders don't need those details; outsiders certainly won't understand subtle intra-project renamings and dyings. If some of those details are positive selling points, they should appear in the official release notes and announcements.
That's a good point. A renaming operation does have the virtue of being simple to understand for outsiders. If we assume that the Zope Toolkit has other focuses internally that it should be all right to give up the name Zope 3 (except in the maintenance sense). Regards, Martijn
Gary Poster wrote:
This message seems like a reasonable start to me: "Zope 3 has become focused on supporting frameworks and applications, rather than trying to be one itself. It is now called the Zope Toolkit. Parts of it are used by Zope 2, Plone, Grok, Repoze.bfg, and by many other different applications and frameworks."
indeed, this seems to me a very nice message. short, pretty much accurate w/o delving too much into the mind-numbing details. yes, there may be some folks out there using the full Z3KGS as an app server, but those are the foks that already understand what's going on. they're just another community of people making good use of the Zope Toolkit. who knows, maybe the app-server-now-known-as-the-full-Z3KGS will grow in popularity to the point where it decides to rebrand itself as a groovy new platform. i'd recommend the name "Zapp". ;) -r
Rob Miller wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
This message seems like a reasonable start to me: "Zope 3 has become focused on supporting frameworks and applications, rather than trying to be one itself. It is now called the Zope Toolkit. Parts of it are used by Zope 2, Plone, Grok, Repoze.bfg, and by many other different applications and frameworks."
indeed, this seems to me a very nice message. short, pretty much accurate w/o delving too much into the mind-numbing details. yes, there may be some folks out there using the full Z3KGS as an app server, but those are the foks that already understand what's going on. they're just another community of people making good use of the Zope Toolkit.
Trying to put myself in the shoes of an outsider, I agree with Rob in agreeing with Gary. This is a message that makes sense. I think, unfortunately, there's just too much confusion in names and meaning in the other threads here, which makes any decision based on those names and meanings very, very risky. I do realise that this derails Maritjn's focus slightly, but I don't think we've lost the idea that there may be value in maintaining a larger KGS. That shouldn't be called 'Zope 3' though, it should be called something else, or maybe a set of something elses, like the 'Zope Toolkit App Server Bundle' and the 'Zope Toolkit Management UI Bundle'. Or something.
who knows, maybe the app-server-now-known-as-the-full-Z3KGS will grow in popularity to the point where it decides to rebrand itself as a groovy new platform. i'd recommend the name "Zapp". ;)
Heh, you always were good with names, Rob. ;-) Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book
Hey, Martin Aspeli wrote: [snip]
I do realise that this derails Maritjn's focus slightly, but I don't think we've lost the idea that there may be value in maintaining a larger KGS.
The whole idea of whatever-Zope 3-is-designated-as just being a "larger KGS" strikes me as strange. Frankly it strikes me as indicative of what's wrong with this community. Grok isn't just a KGS; it's a project and there's documentation and a web presence. Zope 2 isn't just a KGS either. If the perception of such a thing is that limited... oh well, I will stop worrying about it altogether. It's not going to be very popular. I'll note again that the Zope Toolkit won't have documents on "How to get started developing with the Zope Toolkit". Regards, Martijn
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey,
Martin Aspeli wrote: [snip]
I do realise that this derails Maritjn's focus slightly, but I don't think we've lost the idea that there may be value in maintaining a larger KGS.
The whole idea of whatever-Zope 3-is-designated-as just being a "larger KGS" strikes me as strange. Frankly it strikes me as indicative of what's wrong with this community. Grok isn't just a KGS; it's a project and there's documentation and a web presence. Zope 2 isn't just a KGS either.
Sigh... this discussion is just really difficult. I don't really understand what the problem is here, or why it's indicative of what's "wrong" with this community, but then I'm pretty lost in concepts and names at this stage. I think you're reading way too much into what I wrote though. I just meant "thing using the Zope Toolkit but adding more stuff", e.g. an app server project or a shared management UI project.
If the perception of such a thing is that limited... oh well, I will stop worrying about it altogether. It's not going to be very popular.
I'll note again that the Zope Toolkit won't have documents on "How to get started developing with the Zope Toolkit".
True, though I hope it'll have some kind of documentation on how other projects can approach it and re-use it, or it won't be very successful. ;) I'll say again, though: Gary's version of the story ("the Zope 3 community has become focused on supporting other app servers and frameworks, and is renaming the software stack that serves that purpose to the Zope Toolkit" reads pretty well to me). Better than the other stories I've seen here, because it doesn't really concern itself with specific packages or features or a delta of those against a hypothetical smaller "toolkit". In other words, I have a pretty good idea of what it means just from reading that sentence, and I can draw some conclusions about what it may mean for my existing Zope3-based projects and what it may mean for other projects (Grok, Zope 2, bfg) that have used Zope 3 components. Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book
Hey Martin, Martin Aspeli wrote: [snip]
Sigh... this discussion is just really difficult. I don't really understand what the problem is here, or why it's indicative of what's "wrong" with this community, but then I'm pretty lost in concepts and names at this stage.
I think you're reading way too much into what I wrote though. I just meant "thing using the Zope Toolkit but adding more stuff", e.g. an app server project or a shared management UI project.
The difference is I think was that I'm not talking about just code; a KGS is just a list of versions. I'm talking about code and documentation and a presentation of this code as a whole that people can learn about and play with. The notion that it's just enough for Zope 3 to be pieces of code is part of what led me to Grok. If the notion of Zope 3 can be limited to just a greater set of packages where compatibility is tested, it's not really much of a project to speak of. That's fine, we have other projects like Grok that do care, but I'll stop worrying about it.
I'll say again, though: Gary's version of the story ("the Zope 3 community has become focused on supporting other app servers and frameworks, and is renaming the software stack that serves that purpose to the Zope Toolkit" reads pretty well to me). Better than the other stories I've seen here, because it doesn't really concern itself with specific packages or features or a delta of those against a hypothetical smaller "toolkit". In other words, I have a pretty good idea of what it means just from reading that sentence, and I can draw some conclusions about what it may mean for my existing Zope3-based projects and what it may mean for other projects (Grok, Zope 2, bfg) that have used Zope 3 components.
Sure, it's a reasonable approach. I am just frustrated that the notion of a project that is something *more* than the Zope Toolkit seems to be so incredibly hard to explain in this context. That in itself speaks for Gary's proposal, as it's pretty easy to explain. The alternative explanation is that people understand what I'm talking about just fine. After all I'm talking about a project like Grok (or Django or Pylons or TurboGears or Rails or BFG) but one that takes a more "traditional" approach to configuring things (ZCML). The project described in Philipp's book, for instance. People may just all not care about it? People only seem to be interested in attracting new users to (bits of) this platform the context of Grok or BFG or Plone. I find it interesting and somewhat frustrating, but that's all history and I don't really need this project to exist anyway. I just thought that some people on this list do need such a project. So I'm ready to just go with Gary's plan and present this as a renaming recognizing that Zope 3 has become something very different, as there really indeed doesn't seem to be anything else left. Regards, Martijn
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey Martin,
Martin Aspeli wrote: [snip]
Sigh... this discussion is just really difficult. I don't really understand what the problem is here, or why it's indicative of what's "wrong" with this community, but then I'm pretty lost in concepts and names at this stage.
I think you're reading way too much into what I wrote though. I just meant "thing using the Zope Toolkit but adding more stuff", e.g. an app server project or a shared management UI project.
The difference is I think was that I'm not talking about just code; a KGS is just a list of versions. I'm talking about code and documentation and a presentation of this code as a whole that people can learn about and play with.
The notion that it's just enough for Zope 3 to be pieces of code is part of what led me to Grok.
If the notion of Zope 3 can be limited to just a greater set of packages where compatibility is tested, it's not really much of a project to speak of. That's fine, we have other projects like Grok that do care, but I'll stop worrying about it.
sure, i understand what you're saying here. it'd be great if some set of folks who are using the full Z3 app server platform decided to step up, create a website, refine the branding, and just generally breathe life into the project. but, until someone does, we have a weird muddled situation where nobody except the people who are regulars on this mailing list has any idea what is going on with this "Zope" thing. me, personally, i don't use the Z3 app server platform, so i'm not going to be one of the people who steps up to take charge of it's public face. and, frankly, i don't really care one way or the other whether or not anybody else does it. but you DO seem to care, martijn; you'd like to see that platform get the love, attention, and branding that it deserves. that's great. but i suggest you'd have more success in that effort if you said things like: "Hey, all you people out there using the Zope 3 app server thingy... you realize you have a branding problem, right? Now is a perfect time to revisit your platform. Maybe some folks should get together, come up with a catchy name (Rob Miller already suggested 'Zapp'... ;-) , and build a website with some documentation... whaddaya say?" instead of: "The whole idea of whatever-Zope 3-is-designated-as just being a 'larger KGS' strikes me as strange. Frankly it strikes me as indicative of what's wrong with this community." of course, there are no guarantees that you're going to get any takers no matter HOW you approach this. but that's life, IMO... if nobody steps up to do what needs to be done, well, there you are. -r
Hey Rob, Rob Miller wrote: [snip]
sure, i understand what you're saying here. it'd be great if some set of folks who are using the full Z3 app server platform decided to step up, create a website, refine the branding, and just generally breathe life into the project. but, until someone does, we have a weird muddled situation where nobody except the people who are regulars on this mailing list has any idea what is going on with this "Zope" thing.
me, personally, i don't use the Z3 app server platform, so i'm not going to be one of the people who steps up to take charge of it's public face. and, frankly, i don't really care one way or the other whether or not anybody else does it. but you DO seem to care, martijn; you'd like to see that platform get the love, attention, and branding that it deserves. that's great.
but i suggest you'd have more success in that effort if you said things like:
"Hey, all you people out there using the Zope 3 app server thingy... you realize you have a branding problem, right? Now is a perfect time to revisit your platform. Maybe some folks should get together, come up with a catchy name (Rob Miller already suggested 'Zapp'... ;-) , and build a website with some documentation... whaddaya say?"
instead of:
"The whole idea of whatever-Zope 3-is-designated-as just being a 'larger KGS' strikes me as strange. Frankly it strikes me as indicative of what's wrong with this community."
You're right of course, I apologize for going that way. I have little excuse for that. Of course you will see previous thread where I tried to talk about Zope 3 and who wanted to maintain it where I tried the erlier bit - I mean, I've been trying to get that very discussion started. It just seems many of the regular users of Zope 3 are pretty uninterested in that topic (see my Zope 3 team post for an overview), though there were some people who are, and I should focus on them. Regards, Martijn
Martijn Faassen wrote:
You're right of course, I apologize for going that way. I have little excuse for that.
You've taken a lot of heat in this thread. I hope that doesn't bother you too much, because I think you're an extremely valuable team member. This kind of discussion is hard, but it is an important part of any mature project. I find it rather encouraging that so many people are participating in this thread. Clearly, the Zope project has many dedicated contributors. I don't know how valuable my opinion about all of this is, but I'll suggest it in case it's useful. In my mind, I've been thinking of Zope Toolkit as the subset of Zope 3 that has well-managed dependencies. Zope 3 already has good code and excellent test coverage, but what's controversial about it is the mad package dependency graph as you reach inside zope.app. Given that definition, Zope Toolkit will start relatively small, since much of Zope 3 does not yet qualify. However, as people refine packages, the packages will be reconsidered for inclusion in the Zope Toolkit, and the Zope Toolkit will hopefully grow into something similar to what we currently know as Zope 3. Zope 3 can't die; people are relying on it and maintaining it. The maintainers are doing a rather good job too, IMHO. The checkins list has been active lately. We don't have to create any more Zope 3 tarballs, but we should keep up the KGS. The Zope Toolkit will be the subset that's good for building applications, web sites, and frameworks. Zope 3 will be designed only for building applications and web sites. I'll be able to recommend Zope Toolkit to friends without hesitation. They will be able to learn the ZTK in small steps because the dependency graph will be comprehensible. It will never be necessary to learn all of ZTK to be productive. Many will start with the ZTK and eventually realize they only need a small subset of ZTK. They will be happy when they discover how easy it is to use a subset of ZTK. Zope 3 is the thing I'll still recommend to people who decide they want to drink all of Zope in at once. Some people have good reasons to want that, after all. Shane
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 08:32:52AM -0600, Shane Hathaway wrote:
Given that definition, Zope Toolkit will start relatively small, since much of Zope 3 does not yet qualify. However, as people refine packages, the packages will be reconsidered for inclusion in the Zope Toolkit, and the Zope Toolkit will hopefully grow into something similar to what we currently know as Zope 3.
Zope 3 can't die; people are relying on it and maintaining it. The maintainers are doing a rather good job too, IMHO. The checkins list has been active lately. We don't have to create any more Zope 3 tarballs, but we should keep up the KGS.
The Zope Toolkit will be the subset that's good for building applications, web sites, and frameworks. Zope 3 will be designed only for building applications and web sites.
+1, this sounds like a good way forward. Albertas
Albertas Agejevas wrote:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 08:32:52AM -0600, Shane Hathaway wrote:
Given that definition, Zope Toolkit will start relatively small, since much of Zope 3 does not yet qualify. However, as people refine packages, the packages will be reconsidered for inclusion in the Zope Toolkit, and the Zope Toolkit will hopefully grow into something similar to what we currently know as Zope 3.
Zope 3 can't die; people are relying on it and maintaining it. The maintainers are doing a rather good job too, IMHO. The checkins list has been active lately. We don't have to create any more Zope 3 tarballs, but we should keep up the KGS.
The Zope Toolkit will be the subset that's good for building applications, web sites, and frameworks. Zope 3 will be designed only for building applications and web sites.
+1, this sounds like a good way forward.
Thanks. It occurred to me that one simple test of a Zope naming scheme is to consider what employers will write in job descriptions. Consider these alternatives: 1. "Candidate must be have Zope 3 experience." 2. "Candidate must be experienced with the Zope Toolkit." #1 is ambiguous. If I'm highly experienced with Grok or Repoze, doesn't that count? What if I'm a modern Plone developer? If the HR department does the hiring, they are likely to disqualify good candidates. #2 should allow developers experienced with Grok, Repoze, modern Plone, and possibly even Twisted, but does not allow old-school Zope 2 or inexperienced Python developers. This seems much more like what typical employers want to express. Shane
Shane Hathaway wrote:
1. "Candidate must be have Zope 3 experience."
2. "Candidate must be experienced with the Zope Toolkit."
Of course I meant... 1. "Candidate must have Zope 3 experience." 2. "Candidate must have Zope Toolkit experience." Shane
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 18:42, Shane Hathaway <shane@hathawaymix.org> wrote:
It occurred to me that one simple test of a Zope naming scheme is to consider what employers will write in job descriptions.
That's a bloody good point. -- Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 18:42, Shane Hathaway <shane@hathawaymix.org> wrote:
It occurred to me that one simple test of a Zope naming scheme is to consider what employers will write in job descriptions.
That's a bloody good point.
Thanks. I take it this point reinforces your proposal that we should both create Zope Toolkit as a subset of Zope 3, *and* rename Zope 3 to something else. We could rename Zope 3 to "Zope Toolkit Reference Application for the InterNet", or ZTRAIN. This name expresses several intents: - Zope 3 is the reference application for building something for the Internet on top of Zope Toolkit. - Not all of the Zope community is using it. If everyone were using it, we would call it simply Zope. However, someone is using it, otherwise we wouldn't bother naming it. - Zope 3 was derailed (pun, ha ha) a bit and now we're trying to put it back on track. - People who like Ruby on Rails might like this too. Also, it follows the open source tradition of slightly whimsical names. The logo could be a train engine driven by a Zope fish. :-) Shane
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 23:32, Shane Hathaway <shane@hathawaymix.org> wrote:
Also, it follows the open source tradition of slightly whimsical names. The logo could be a train engine driven by a Zope fish. :-)
Done. Does this mailing list accept attachements? -- Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 23:32, Shane Hathaway <shane@hathawaymix.org> wrote:
Also, it follows the open source tradition of slightly whimsical names. The logo could be a train engine driven by a Zope fish. :-)
Done. Does this mailing list accept attachements?
Wowsers. LOL! Shane
Wow, long thread started just from an attempt to define the words we were talking about. :) On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 10:04, Martin Aspeli <optilude+lists@gmail.com> wrote:
I'll say again, though: Gary's version of the story ("the Zope 3 community has become focused on supporting other app servers and frameworks, and is renaming the software stack that serves that purpose to the Zope Toolkit" reads pretty well to me).
Yes. But the problem with it is that it isn't very true. The question then becomes if it's true enough to be a help or a hindrance in clearing up misconceptions. One problem with it is that it forces the hand of the people who want to continue to support Zope 3 (in sense 1 2 and 3), since they then *must* rename Zope 3 to something else. And if this happens, then we have the story that Zope 3 was renamed the Zope Toolkit, while in fact it was renamed to something else. A more truthful story is that Zope Toolkit is a base for writing frameworks, and that one of those frameworks was Zope 3, now renamed to <something cool>. But the support in this thread for the previous story makes me wonder if we shouldn't push that, slightly more incorrect story, anyway. People seem to understand it. It's in this situation possible that it's better with a false story that people understand than a correct story that just adds to the confusion. -- Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64
Hey, Lennart Regebro wrote:
A more truthful story is that Zope Toolkit is a base for writing frameworks, and that one of those frameworks was Zope 3, now renamed to <something cool>. But the support in this thread for the previous story makes me wonder if we shouldn't push that, slightly more incorrect story, anyway. People seem to understand it. It's in this situation possible that it's better with a false story that people understand than a correct story that just adds to the confusion.
Yeah, I've been thinking the same. But I think it's even unclear what the correct story is given the lack of interest people have in the Zope 3 project beyond what the toolkit offers. I think Carsten says it well though, contrasting external and internal communication, and not just making the term "Zope 3" disappear. We should just retain the Zope 3 name to the outside world for the time being, but de-emphasize it in our communication. We push Zope Toolkit a lot more. If people want to get started using the toolkit, we point them to Grok, BFG and Plone. Regards, Martijn
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 16:51, Martijn Faassen <faassen@startifact.com> wrote:
We should just retain the Zope 3 name to the outside world for the time being, but de-emphasize it in our communication. We push Zope Toolkit a lot more. If people want to get started using the toolkit, we point them to Grok, BFG and Plone.
I think this is a good plan. -- Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64
Rob Miller schrieb:
Gary Poster wrote:
This message seems like a reasonable start to me: "Zope 3 has become focused on supporting frameworks and applications, rather than trying to be one itself. It is now called the Zope Toolkit. Parts of it are used by Zope 2, Plone, Grok, Repoze.bfg, and by many other different applications and frameworks."
indeed, this seems to me a very nice message. short, pretty much accurate w/o delving too much into the mind-numbing details.
I'm also in love with this simple message. I would make it even more simple when communicating outside the zope developers community: Don't use "Zope 3" in any general description. Most references from outsiders to Zope concepts I read the last month referred to "Zope", not Zope 3. When we start to promote the "Zope Toolkit" to the rest of the world, we don't need to make people think about what Zope 3 is/was, even if it's less accurate. "Zope has become focused on supporting frameworks and applications, rather than trying to be one itself. These libraries are named the Zope Toolkit. Parts of it are used by the Zope 2 Application Server, Plone, Grok, Repoze.bfg, and by many other different applications and frameworks." [...] ..Carsten
On Apr 17, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Simon Michael wrote:
-1, Gary's is clearer.
I think what is clear or not is very subjective. I think that at least is clear.
I think it is clear that you are disregarding many people's opinions. Jim -- Jim Fulton Zope Corporation
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Apr 17, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Simon Michael wrote:
-1, Gary's is clearer. I think what is clear or not is very subjective. I think that at least is clear.
I think it is clear that you are disregarding many people's opinions.
<censored by the PSU> Regards, Martijn
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 18:00, Jim Fulton <jim@zope.com> wrote:
I think it is clear that you are disregarding many people's opinions.
What opinions have been disregarded, more exactly? -- Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64
On Apr 17, 2009, at 12:17 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 18:00, Jim Fulton <jim@zope.com> wrote:
I think it is clear that you are disregarding many people's opinions.
What opinions have been disregarded, more exactly?
Gary's, Mine, Tres', Simon's, Benji's and others I could find if I trolled through the thread, which I won't. Continuing to talk about Zope 3 is harmful. Saying that Zope 3 is a dead end is also harmful. Saying that Zope 3 is being renamed to Zope Toolkit with some things left out and with some possible Zope 3 project that may or may not support the bits left out is at best too confusing. Simply saying that we're renaming Zope 3 to the Zope Toolkit is clean and simple. The fact that the contents of the toolkit will change over time as parts are gradually deprecated or receive less care is a detail that doesn't have to be part of the main message. At worst, the message Gary suggests is imprecise. It isn't inaccurate. Of course, Gary made these points more eloquently than I just did. Jim -- Jim Fulton Zope Corporation
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Apr 17, 2009, at 12:17 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 18:00, Jim Fulton <jim@zope.com> wrote:
I think it is clear that you are disregarding many people's opinions. What opinions have been disregarded, more exactly?
Gary's, Mine, Tres', Simon's, Benji's and others I could find if I trolled through the thread, which I won't.
I'll troll through the thread myself and just quote myself. """ Given the responses to this thread I'm starting to lean towards pushing the message to the outside that Zope 3 has become Zope Toolkit, has a different focus, basically just as Gary stated, and really push this message internally (on zope-dev) as well. I'll think it over over the weekend (and discuss it with Christian Theune, as we're near to each other in rl then). """ """ That's a good point. A renaming operation does have the virtue of being simple to understand for outsiders. If we assume that the Zope Toolkit has other focuses internally that it should be all right to give up the name Zope 3 (except in the maintenance sense). """ """ So I'm ready to just go with Gary's plan and present this as a renaming recognizing that Zope 3 has become something very different, as there really indeed doesn't seem to be anything else left. """ """ I think Carsten says it well though, contrasting external and internal communication, and not just making the term "Zope 3" disappear. """ [I'll note that Carsten has supported both the rename but also said in another message we shouldn't rename it to the outside world in this thread, similar to my latest proposal] I was hoping that people like Fabio who expressed interest in Zope 3 as a community project (whatever its name) could get some time to organize themselves first. So I proposed delaying this decision first (especially as it'll take us a while to get ready anyway). I'm also just plain concerned with renaming a name referenced in many places (books and so on). This concern was expressed in earlier threads by various people when I proposed renaming Zope 3 to something else. Finally I'm worried that saying Zope 3 was renamed to Zope Toolkit dilutes the concept separation, which was exactly what I was trying so hard to do. I'm still not very happy with the implications of that. Why attack me when I'm trying to give it a bit more thought? It's really discouraging to do that. Regards, Martijn
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 18:25, Jim Fulton <jim@zope.com> wrote:
Gary's, Mine, Tres', Simon's, Benji's and others I could find if I trolled through the thread, which I won't.
I can't see how these have been disregarded. Gary proposed that we say that Zope 3 has been renamed to the Zope Toolkit. Martijn proposed something else. I proposed a third thing. That me and Martijn doesn't automatically agree with an opinion doesn't mean we disregard it.
Continuing to talk about Zope 3 is harmful. Saying that Zope 3 is a dead end is also harmful. Saying that Zope 3 is being renamed to Zope Toolkit with some things left out and with some possible Zope 3 project that may or may not support the bits left out is at best too confusing. Simply saying that we're renaming Zope 3 to the Zope Toolkit is clean and simple.
But it's inaccurate, and it forgets the fact that Zope 3 will be maintained for at least the nearest future. And it *is* inaccurate. Not imprecise, inaccurate. The Toolkit is not a renaming of Zope 3. It's a subset of it. Yes, the statement "Zope 3 is now called Zope Toolkit" is clear. But what happens when people discover that in fact, that the Zope Toolkit is NOT Zope 3, and in fact Zope 3 is still being maintained by Stephan Richter? Is it still clear then? In my opinion it isn't. And I've pointed this out several times, and nobody comes back with a response. Nobody is saying "Yes, we should say that Zope 3 is renamed to Zope Toolkit even though it's incorrect because...." or "It's going to be less confusing because...." So, if I'm gonna act hurt, I'll claim that anybodys opinion here is being disregarded, it's mine. ;-) And I'll state it again, for clarities sake: I think that Zope 3 should be renamed. I proposed "Blue Bream" (and not to the Zope Toolkit, because Zope 3 is NOT the Zope Toolkit. It's more than that). It removes the confusion between Zope 2 and Zope 3. It removes the confusion between Zope 3 and the Zope Toolkit. This way we do not have to continue to talk about Zope 3. This way we don't have to say that Zope 3 is dead. This way we don't have to say that Zope 3 is renamed Zope Toolkit with bits left out. And it is correct, accurate and clear. I have still to see any arguments against this. If there are any, please put them forward. -- Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64
Lennart Regebro wrote:
So, if I'm gonna act hurt, I'll claim that anybodys opinion here is being disregarded, it's mine. ;-) And I'll state it again, for clarities sake:
I think that Zope 3 should be renamed. I proposed "Blue Bream" (and ... I have still to see any arguments against this. If there are any,
Um.. people will laugh at us ? Just my little attempt to inject humour. Sorry Lennart. Blue Bream cracks me up every time I see it. Sorry, sorry. :) This is also a test message to see why my last didn't show up.
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 19:03, Simon Michael <simon@joyful.com> wrote:
Um.. people will laugh at us ?
No, *with* us. Big difference. :) -- Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Apr 17, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Simon Michael wrote:
-1, Gary's is clearer. I think what is clear or not is very subjective. I think that at least is clear.
I think it is clear that you are disregarding many people's opinions.
Okay, I'll come back with a bit more rational response than my first one. Could you also tell me how I'm disregarding people's opinions in this thread? Examples? Or do you think stating my own opinions and concerns, while I'm clearly (explicitly mentioned) thinking this topic through, is tantamount to disregarding other people's opinions? Do you really think I'm in this discussion with people just to disregard their opinions? I'm trying to consider the impact of changing a well-known well-used name that carries certain expectations (different ones for different people!) to something else that was set up explicitly to have different expectations, namely the Zope Toolkit. The Zope Toolkit concept was explicitly designed to *separate* those expectations from the (vague but broad) expectations surrounding Zope 3. I spent quite a bit of time trying to work that out. Now we're a few weeks later. It is proposed instead we rename what we called Zope 3 to "Zope Toolkit" and tell everybody that the expectations changed. I've expressed clearly that's an interesting approach and also clearly that I have some concerns. Excuse me while I try to wrestle with the implications and alternatives surrounding this. I do this because it all isn't very clear to *me*. Regards, Martijn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Apr 17, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Simon Michael wrote:
-1, Gary's is clearer. I think what is clear or not is very subjective. I think that at least is clear.
I think it is clear that you are disregarding many people's opinions.
Okay, I'll come back with a bit more rational response than my first one.
Could you also tell me how I'm disregarding people's opinions in this thread? Examples?
Or do you think stating my own opinions and concerns, while I'm clearly (explicitly mentioned) thinking this topic through, is tantamount to disregarding other people's opinions?
Do you really think I'm in this discussion with people just to disregard their opinions?
I'm trying to consider the impact of changing a well-known well-used name that carries certain expectations (different ones for different people!) to something else that was set up explicitly to have different expectations, namely the Zope Toolkit.
The Zope Toolkit concept was explicitly designed to *separate* those expectations from the (vague but broad) expectations surrounding Zope 3. I spent quite a bit of time trying to work that out. Now we're a few weeks later. It is proposed instead we rename what we called Zope 3 to "Zope Toolkit" and tell everybody that the expectations changed. I've expressed clearly that's an interesting approach and also clearly that I have some concerns.
I am -1 on pushing a "Zope3 is now the Zope Toolkit" message: I would rather that we *not bring up Zope3 in public again*, while still enabling those who have built apps atop the un-brand to maintain them. If somebody asks, "Hey, what happened to Zope3?", we can explain briefly that the core of it is now ZTK, and that the other bits have a life of their own, but *without the un-brand*. To this end, I think we sholud remove all traces of the un-brand from prominent places on our websites, try to stay "on message" as a community, while re-focusing on the technical aspects of the transition (rather than the branding / perception ones). 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 iD8DBQFJ6LKE+gerLs4ltQ4RAkfIAKC/s1iE3sE3+fag5Tvrat6X/uM9XACfTctf EvnsuRnMvhmvoeh7JJ8L/fI= =iKI4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
+1 with Tres' position. On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Tres Seaver <tseaver@palladion.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Apr 17, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Simon Michael wrote:
-1, Gary's is clearer. I think what is clear or not is very subjective. I think that at least is clear.
I think it is clear that you are disregarding many people's opinions.
Okay, I'll come back with a bit more rational response than my first one.
Could you also tell me how I'm disregarding people's opinions in this thread? Examples?
Or do you think stating my own opinions and concerns, while I'm clearly (explicitly mentioned) thinking this topic through, is tantamount to disregarding other people's opinions?
Do you really think I'm in this discussion with people just to disregard their opinions?
I'm trying to consider the impact of changing a well-known well-used name that carries certain expectations (different ones for different people!) to something else that was set up explicitly to have different expectations, namely the Zope Toolkit.
The Zope Toolkit concept was explicitly designed to *separate* those expectations from the (vague but broad) expectations surrounding Zope 3. I spent quite a bit of time trying to work that out. Now we're a few weeks later. It is proposed instead we rename what we called Zope 3 to "Zope Toolkit" and tell everybody that the expectations changed. I've expressed clearly that's an interesting approach and also clearly that I have some concerns.
I am -1 on pushing a "Zope3 is now the Zope Toolkit" message: I would rather that we *not bring up Zope3 in public again*, while still enabling those who have built apps atop the un-brand to maintain them. If somebody asks, "Hey, what happened to Zope3?", we can explain briefly that the core of it is now ZTK, and that the other bits have a life of their own, but *without the un-brand*.
To this end, I think we sholud remove all traces of the un-brand from prominent places on our websites, try to stay "on message" as a community, while re-focusing on the technical aspects of the transition (rather than the branding / perception ones).
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
iD8DBQFJ6LKE+gerLs4ltQ4RAkfIAKC/s1iE3sE3+fag5Tvrat6X/uM9XACfTctf EvnsuRnMvhmvoeh7JJ8L/fI= =iKI4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 17:07, Simon Michael <simon@joyful.com> wrote:
-1, Gary's is clearer.
But still not accurate. I've yet hear anybody actually support the point of view that we should (internally or externally) push a story that is not really true. If this indeed is the opinion of the majority, I for one would like to hear people say so explicitly, as it is right now hard to know if you support Gary's story because it's clear, even though it's an oversimplification, or if you support it because you believe it to be accurate. If we are going to oversimplify for claritys sake, I think it's important that we are aware and honest about it. -- Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64
Hi, I usually love gmail, but in these last discussions I have trouble to understand, where I should write my reply to, since I can not see a thread. So I write a reply to the first mail and reference to various mails below. Sorry for that confusion to the people who use real mail readers! I would like to comment on this stuff with a bit of an outsider view. Somewhere in 2005-2006 I got a bit disconnected from zope and its evolvement. I was stuck to, I think, 2.8, and lots of Zope2 specialities that exist in Zope2 and not in Zope3. I disliked the things that were in Zope2 but not in Zope3. I must admit, that's a bit of fan boy attitude that I must get rid of. But in the time 2005, 2006, Z3 was the new kid on the block, everybody was wondering who would need how much time to migrate to the new zope. Zope3 was the big rewrite that will be the standard soon. Now I was told that Zope3 is not being seen as a replacement of Zope2. That stuck me as odd. Philips book does not say, that Zope3 will replace Zope2. But he suggests to try to use as much Zope3 technology through five, to have an easy migration. That at least suggests that Zope3 is the future while Zope2 is not. When I go to www.zope.org and click on Zope 3 on the left, I reach a wiki page that states that Zope 3 improves the development experience. There is nowhere written that Zope3 replaces Zope2. But it also suggests it. The English entry of the wikipedia states clearly that Zope3 is not the successor, an older version even points to suggestions from Jim, where is a discussion about the possible future: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope3-dev/2006-February/018415.html I did not check wikipedia, nor did I skim the last three years of mailing list traffic, I wonder, did I not do enough thoroughly research in 2008? ============================================================= I came back to Zope Land in October 2008. I became responsible for a number of web apps that are based on Zope2, all programming logic in Script Python, and all data in MySQL. Actually even security was implemented on its own based on attributes in sql. I considered this an outdated development model. But I am beginning to understand that this is wrong, that's my damn fan boy attitude. Everybody said, Zope3 is better so Zope2 models that were not taken over clearly must suck. Funnily, I tend to gravitate to products that handle zope2 development this way. 2005/2006 I was also doing stuff, there all I did was considered customization and should be handled in script python. The developers went big ways to make this better and better, they even added svn support for the scripts! But I disliked it, fan boy that I am, and was thinking: "Hah, when Zope3 comes along and Zope2 will be outdated, they must rethink their strategy, then they see that this has no future." I disregarded the business decisions these companies made with the way they did Zope development and considered it inferior. But these companies have based their development model on this. They allow customers who do customizations in code, and depend on Zope, to take care that their customers cant break their system. This is their competitive advantage that they cant afford to loose. That is a different culture and mind than the ones who do typical Zope3 development. For the Zope3 developer, the only ones who program are the programmers and keeping the code in file system and unrestricted is much much better because you have all the development tools at hand to have higher productivity and safety. Think versioning system and easy search and replace over multiple files. With this in mind, Zope2 and Zope3 are totally different things. People who use Zope2 and want to continue using it have different goals than the Zope3 developers. I think, both have the right to have their own communities. A different name would help separating these communities. People who do both Zope2 and Zope3 stuff would just be in two communities. ============================================================= When I started big extensions in October 2008, I wanted to do it future proof, Zope3ey. I knew of grok, thought of it as something on top of Zope3 and repoze, that seemed to be something different altogether. I wanted to do a smooth migration. As much as possible should be written on top of the Zope3 part in Zope2, so that one day I would just run it on Zope3 directly. I didn't want to use grok, because I feared it would add another complication, and I wanted to do one new thing at a time. It didn't work out exactly like that. Stumbling and stumbling but finally succeeding I ended up reimplementing nearly everything. My goal still was to get it all going on Zope3 one day, but I stayed with Zope 2.10. Now after reading the threads, I start to believe that this was the wrong way. I think now grok is not so much on top of Zope3, and maybe I should have taken a deeper look into that. But how shall somebody, who does not wade through the mailing lists, make an informed decision? If the Zope3 App Server with its zmi is becoming more of an implementation to show whats possible with the ZTK, why should it be called Zope3? ============================================================= People start to get annoyed of this discussion, since some started to say bad words. I for one am happy about this discussion, because I hope that It might result in a better common understanding and after that a better public statement, whats happening, what frameworks are around and which have what advantages and disadvantages. Also, I want be be in the Zope foundation, so that Lennart makes me drunk too. I heard he favors whisky. That's fine. Best regards, Patrick
Hey Patrick, Patrick Gerken wrote: [snip]
I did not check wikipedia, nor did I skim the last three years of mailing list traffic, I wonder, did I not do enough thoroughly research in 2008?
I think the strong impression was given that Zope 3 was going to be the new bright future and that Zope 2 was going to be replaced by Zope 3, one way or the other. It doesn't matter what exactly was said, the impression was given. The path that this took has evolved over time. The original ideas about Zope 3 being able to run Zope 2 code, perhaps with a migration script, never went anywhere. But along another path in some ways we are already in that future, as Zope 2 apps use a large amount of Zope 3 approaches and code. One thing that happened recently is that we extracted the concept of the Zope Toolkit from Zope 3. We'd now say that Zope 2 uses the Zope Toolkit. It could use more of the toolkit, it could use the toolkit better, and the toolkit itself is imperfect, but it's going forward, and that's good. [snip]
I disregarded the business decisions these companies made with the way they did Zope development and considered it inferior. But these companies have based their development model on this. They allow customers who do customizations in code, and depend on Zope, to take care that their customers cant break their system. This is their competitive advantage that they cant afford to loose.
That is a different culture and mind than the ones who do typical Zope3 development.
Yes, I think that this is an important realization; that development using the ZMI, while flawed in many ways, is also *superior* in other ways to the development model that Zope 3 (and the Zope Toolkit) use. I talked a bit about that here: http://faassen.n--tree.net/blog/view/weblog/2008/09/19/0 One response to this is to try to make the development model of the Zope Toolkit less challenging for developers. That's Grok. Another response is to make there simply less code to worry about when developing; that's BFG. Hopefully we'll manage to continue to evolve the Toolkit in the direction of increased simplicity too. But there are other responses. One is to reconsider through the web development patterns and see how they might be supported in the context of the Zope Toolkit. I have some ideas...
For the Zope3 developer, the only ones who program are the programmers and keeping the code in file system and unrestricted is much much better because you have all the development tools at hand to have higher productivity and safety. Think versioning system and easy search and replace over multiple files.
With this in mind, Zope2 and Zope3 are totally different things. People who use Zope2 and want to continue using it have different goals than the Zope3 developers. I think, both have the right to have their own communities. A different name would help separating these communities. People who do both Zope2 and Zope3 stuff would just be in two communities.
I think it's valuable for those communities to share code and approaches, but yes, I think a different name (for either Zope 2 or Zope 3, where Zope 3 would be the road of least resistance) would help make clear the vast differences between Zope 2 and Zope 3. There are a large number of overlaps too, but fundamentally the Zope 2 TTW web development model is quite different. [snip]
I think now grok is not so much on top of Zope3, and maybe I should have taken a deeper look into that.
In the past, when Zope 3 meant both "Zope Toolkit" and "Zope 3 the thing you install and start developing with", Grok was on top of Zope 3 in part. Now we simply state that Grok is built on top of the Zope Toolkit. It mostly adds an alternative configuration mechanism to the Zope Toolkit (through Martian), and tries to make it easier to hook up applications this way.
But how shall somebody, who does not wade through the mailing lists, make an informed decision?
No. This is why I think good information on the web and a consistent message are both important. We're not there yet for both. I think we need a home page that says: want to get started with Zope? Here are the options. That is being worked on.
If the Zope3 App Server with its zmi is becoming more of an implementation to show whats possible with the ZTK, why should it be called Zope3?
I don't think it's to show what's possible. I think it is a development platform that pre-integrates the Zope Toolkit and adds a bit (documentation, installation methods, a user community).
People start to get annoyed of this discussion, since some started to say bad words. I for one am happy about this discussion, because I hope that It might result in a better common understanding and after that a better public statement, whats happening, what frameworks are around and which have what advantages and disadvantages.
Me too!
Also, I want be be in the Zope foundation, so that Lennart makes me drunk too. I heard he favors whisky. That's fine.
:) You're very welcome to join! I'd be happy to nominate you as a member. http://foundation.zope.org/members/join Thank you Patrick for your thoughts. I think it would do people good to read thoughts like this more often on this mailing list, so I hope you'll continue to contribute. Regards, Martijn
participants (20)
-
Albertas Agejevas -
Andrew Sawyers -
Benji York -
Carsten Senger -
Christian Theune -
Gary Poster -
Helmut Merz -
Jens W. Klein -
Jim Fulton -
Jonathan (dev101) -
Lennart Regebro -
Martijn Faassen -
Martin Aspeli -
Patrick Gerken -
Paul Everitt -
Rob Miller -
Shane Hathaway -
Simon Michael -
Stephan Richter -
Tres Seaver