Re: [Zope-dev] Plone/Metadata/FUD
From: Max M <maxm@mxm.dk>
Paul Everitt wrote:
...this. How can we listen to you if you're not participating? But to your point: the Zope community does not want, IMO, Zope and CMF merged. Content management is a piece of the Zope pie, not the whole pie.
And sooo right you are. If Zope became the CMF or Plone I would drop it in an instance.
I'm way too tired and need to hit the sack now, but here is a quote from the URL given to me by Paul " Zope 3 will include many of the components and frameworks currently supplied by the CMF. " Now I never claimed or stated that the CMF needed to be merged with the Core Zope. Nor did I claim that Plone needed to be merged into Zope. After school tommorrow I will work to clarify my position. What I'm sensing though is double speak, because now it sounds like you want to beef up that shovel, and imho the content to be managed is the dirt. My only response is why wasn't " Many of the components and frameworks currently supplied by the CMF" included in the core Zope in the first place? Everybody has the right to work on their own thing sure. We would already have a highly extensible Zope3 by now if the time wasn't spent trying to create something else that should have been in the core of Zope in the first place. Let me ask you this, what does an app server serve? I say it servers content, you can call it data, information, results, or whatever. I'd say we would have had alot more products out for Zope had that framework been placed in Zope instead or "Forking" the content concept with a seperate tool. There are parts of the CMF that we can agree on that don't belong in the core of Zope. And that is where products such as Plone, CMFZen, and Swishdot come into play. What is the problem with my point of view? <snip> Peace, -- James I am a Washington State Citizen. Spamming this Email Address may be against Washington State Law Chapter 19.86, and 19.190 RCW. http://www.wa.gov/ago/junkemail/protect.html _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
My only response is why wasn't " Many of the components and frameworks currently supplied by the CMF" included in the core Zope in the first place? Everybody has the right to work on their own thing sure. We would already have a highly extensible Zope3 by now if the time wasn't spent trying to create something else that should have been in the core of Zope in the first place.
If only people could write the ideal software first time! From my point of view as a Zope 3 contributor, I'm extremely glad that the patterns, use-cases and learning experiences were developed in the CMF, outside of the core of Zope. If what is going into Zope 3 had been worked into the core of Zope 2 instead of being tried out in the CMF, the speed of development would have been an order of magnitude slower, and there would have been a much greater risk of increasing the number of deprecated APIs in the Zope 2 core. So, bravo to the CMF developers and contributors. Not only do we have a useful and innovative framework today, we have the blueprints for a better Zope tomorrow. -- Steve Alexander
participants (2)
-
James Johnson -
Steve Alexander