congrats on the new zope.org launch, but..
Hi there, Congrats on the relaunch of zope.org, I know it's been a hard slog! But I brought up an item twice already and nothing appears to have been done about it. According to zope.org Gork is more like ZPT than it is like BlueBream. Griok is more like CMF than it is like BlueBream. This is because Grok is listed under the grab-bag framework category. I also mention that 'Application Servers' may not be the best heading for the category which could contain Zope and BlueBream and Grok. Zope's an application server, the other two are called "web framework" I really think it's obvious that this is wrong, so, please fix, thanks. Regards, Martijn
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
Congrats on the relaunch of zope.org, I know it's been a hard slog!
But I brought up an item twice already and nothing appears to have been done about it.
Sorry for not picking up your valuable input earlier.
According to zope.org Gork is more like ZPT than it is like BlueBream. Griok is more like CMF than it is like BlueBream. This is because Grok is listed under the grab-bag framework category.
I partly agree with you - I think Grok can be considered both as an application server and as a framework. I would not object to move Grok to the app server section if you want it. The problem is more that grab-bag "framework". The "ZCA" is to be honest not a framework but a concept and "ZPT" is a part of the "ZTK" and all other frameworks.
I also mention that 'Application Servers' may not be the best heading for the category which could contain Zope and BlueBream and Grok. Zope's an application server, the other two are called "web framework"
I won't start a new philosophical discussion about differences between application servers and web-frameworks - any better naming suggestion for a category holding Zope, Bluebream and Grok? Andreas
Hey, On 07/11/2011 06:09 PM, Andreas Jung wrote:
According to zope.org Gork is more like ZPT than it is like BlueBream. Griok is more like CMF than it is like BlueBream. This is because Grok is listed under the grab-bag framework category.
I partly agree with you - I think Grok can be considered both as an application server and as a framework. I would not object to move Grok to the app server section if you want it.
+1
The problem is more that grab-bag "framework". The "ZCA" is to be honest not a framework but a concept and "ZPT" is a part of the "ZTK" and all other frameworks.
Yeah, it's a grab bag item, I already mentioned that previously, but I still think Grok should be in the same category with BlueBream. We can look up my previous post to see what I suggested about the framework category there; I did offer some suggestions there.
I also mention that 'Application Servers' may not be the best heading for the category which could contain Zope and BlueBream and Grok. Zope's an application server, the other two are called "web framework"
I won't start a new philosophical discussion about differences between application servers and web-frameworks - any better naming suggestion for a category holding Zope, Bluebream and Grok?
I'd just call the category "web framework"; 2 out of 3 already say they are. Zope can then itself say in its description that it's an application server if that's an important term. It's still a compromise but I think it's better to compromise towards "web framework" which is the more recognizable term. Regards, Martijn
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Martijn Faassen <faassen@startifact.com> wrote:
I'd just call the category "web framework"; 2 out of 3 already say they are. Zope can then itself say in its description that it's an application server if that's an important term.
At least zope2.zope.org uses the "web framework" term to describe Zope 2 as well. "application server" doesn't describe todays Zope 2 codebase and aim anymore either. So I'd rather place all of the "big guys" in the "web framework" box. Hanno
On 07/15/2011 03:13 PM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Martijn Faassen<faassen@startifact.com> wrote:
I'd just call the category "web framework"; 2 out of 3 already say they are. Zope can then itself say in its description that it's an application server if that's an important term.
At least zope2.zope.org uses the "web framework" term to describe Zope 2 as well. "application server" doesn't describe todays Zope 2 codebase and aim anymore either.
So I'd rather place all of the "big guys" in the "web framework" box.
+1 Regards, Martijn
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 16:23, Martijn Faassen <faassen@startifact.com> wrote:
On 07/15/2011 03:13 PM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Martijn Faassen<faassen@startifact.com> wrote:
I'd just call the category "web framework"; 2 out of 3 already say they are. Zope can then itself say in its description that it's an application server if that's an important term.
At least zope2.zope.org uses the "web framework" term to describe Zope 2 as well. "application server" doesn't describe todays Zope 2 codebase and aim anymore either.
So I'd rather place all of the "big guys" in the "web framework" box.
+1
+1 too.
participants (4)
-
Andreas Jung -
Hanno Schlichting -
Lennart Regebro -
Martijn Faassen