--On 4. Oktober 2007 15:15:40 -0400 Stephan Richter <srichter@cosmos.phy.tufts.edu> wrote:

On Thursday 04 October 2007 09:57, Jim Fulton wrote:

...

This would basically involve retiring the zope3-dev list and moving   zope3 developers to the zope-dev list.

-1. I do not follow zope-dev at all and the traffic is pretty high there.

Not as high as on the zope3-dev list. +1 for phasing the "zope3" term out. -aj

--On 6. Oktober 2007 03:16:53 +0200 Roger Ineichen <dev@projekt01.ch> wrote:

...

Betreff: [Zope3-dev] I'd lobe to merge the zope3-dev and zope-dev lists

Any objections?

This would basically involve retiring the zope3-dev list and moving zope3 developers to the zope-dev list.

-1

Not that I'm not interested in what's going on in Zope 2, but the two list let me easy separate this two different topics. And it will allow me to read the Zope2 mails in digest mode if I don't have time to read all.

That's a bit shortsighted. First we want to get rid of the term "Zope 3" in the future (since it confuses ppl). Second: decisions and discussons made in the Zope components world have an impact on the Zope 2 world. Sorry to say but the Zope components world is not an island. Andreas

--On 6. Oktober 2007 08:14:10 -0400 Benji York <benji@zope.com> wrote:

Andreas Jung wrote:

...

we want to get rid of the term "Zope 3" in the future

The confusion for people with the terms and Zope 2 and Zope 3 was one of major topics of the last german Zope conference. And there were also talks between the DZUG and the ZF on this topic and there was agreement that we should speak of "the zope application" and "zope components" - however this topic belongs on desk of the Zope foundation. -aj

--On 6. Oktober 2007 12:03:06 -0300 David Pratt <fairwinds@eastlink.ca> wrote:

I agree with you Roger. I want things to stay as they are for the same reasons. I have great respect for Zope 2 developers however there there are two development paradigms at play that are fundamentally incompatible despite the inclusion of component architecture in Zope 2.

What do you man by "two development paradigms"? Please don't build a wall between Zope 2 and Zope 3 developers. Most "old-school" Zope 2 developers are doing development also with Zope 3 components and Zope 3 techniques. Look at Plone 3.0 and its heavy usage of Zope 3 techniques...impressing. The Zope 3 development paradigms are highly accepted by most Zope 2 core developers...we are all sitting in the same boat. There is a fundamental difference in the Zope 2 and Zope 3 architecture but little difference between the paradigms how we should design and write software on top of the Zope platform in the future. The distinction between Zope 2 and Zope 3 must disappear. We must speak of "Zope". Everything else is counterproductive when it comes to promoting Zope. There is only one Zope developer community and most of us have a Zope 2 and a Zope 3 hat on (others have a CMF or a Plone head). An artificial separation between Zope 2 and Zope 3 developers is undesirable in my opinion. Andreas

Hi Andreas

What do you man by "two development paradigms"?

Please don't build a wall between Zope 2 and Zope 3 developers. Most "old-school" Zope 2 developers are doing development also with Zope 3 components and Zope 3 techniques. Look at Plone 3.0 and its heavy usage of Zope 3 techniques...impressing. The Zope 3 development paradigms are highly accepted by most Zope 2 core developers...we are all sitting in the same boat. There is a fundamental difference in the Zope 2 and Zope 3 architecture but little difference between the paradigms how we should design and write software on top of the Zope platform in the future.

The distinction between Zope 2 and Zope 3 must disappear. We must speak of "Zope". Everything else is counterproductive when it comes to promoting Zope. There is only one Zope developer community and most of us have a Zope 2 and a Zope 3 hat on (others have a CMF or a Plone head). An artificial separation between Zope 2 and Zope 3 developers is undesirable in my opinion.

You are using 7 times the term "Zope2" and 9 times "Zope 3" and also "Plone 3.0" in this small text. Can you try to describe this without "2 or 3" in "Zope *"? I guess not, right? I really don't care about how it is called, but I'm sure we need some naming convention and since we have one, I don't see any reason to change this. You also use the term "Plone 3.0" which you implie that we know that you mean the Plone which uses Zope 3 components. You are respecting the postifx 3.0 in the Plone world but not for Zope? why? I'm a little confused and don't understand why you are lobbing for such a renaming and at the same time you are using this terms so heavy. Regards Roger Ineichen

Andreas

On Saturday 06 October 2007 13:14, Andreas Jung wrote:

...

You are using 7 times the term "Zope2" and 9 times "Zope 3" and also "Plone 3.0" in this small text. Can you try to describe this without "2 or 3" in "Zope *"? I guess not, right?

s/Zope 2/Zope application server s/Zope 3/Zope components

I personally feel quiet offended to see Zope 3 degraded to a set of components. Zope 3 in itself is also an application server; Zope 2, on the other hand, is an application.

...

I really don't care about how it is called, but I'm sure we need some naming convention and since we have one, I don't see any reason to change this.

As said: there was a big discussion on the terms "Zope 2" and "Zope 3" during the last DZUG conference. Bringing it to the point: the terms "zope 2" and "zope 3" should die. There's only 'Zope'.

I have not been involved in this discussion. Having discussions like this during a conference is good as a starting point, but should never be seen as a canonical decision.

Although you are a Zope component-only  developer you can not ignore the dependent applications and framework.

So you are saying I have to change Zope 3's story to cope with Zope 2's identity crisis? Honestly, degrading Zope 3 to a set of libraries and components is marketing poisoning for people deploying pure Zope 3 applications. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training

Stephan Richter wrote:

On Saturday 06 October 2007 13:14, Andreas Jung wrote:

...

...

You are using 7 times the term "Zope2" and 9 times "Zope 3" and also "Plone 3.0" in this small text. Can you try to describe this without "2 or 3" in "Zope *"? I guess not, right? s/Zope 2/Zope application server s/Zope 3/Zope components

I personally feel quiet offended to see Zope 3 degraded to a set of components. Zope 3 in itself is also an application server; Zope 2, on the other hand, is an application.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you really saying Zope 2 isn't an application server?

...

...

I really don't care about how it is called, but I'm sure we need some naming convention and since we have one, I don't see any reason to change this. As said: there was a big discussion on the terms "Zope 2" and "Zope 3" during the last DZUG conference. Bringing it to the point: the terms "zope 2" and "zope 3" should die. There's only 'Zope'.

I have not been involved in this discussion. Having discussions like this during a conference is good as a starting point, but should never be seen as a canonical decision.

That's a good point. No final decisions were indeed reached.

...

Although you are a Zope component-only developer you can not ignore the dependent applications and framework.

So you are saying I have to change Zope 3's story to cope with Zope 2's identity crisis? Honestly, degrading Zope 3 to a set of libraries and components is marketing poisoning for people deploying pure Zope 3 applications.

I consider Zope 3 to have far more of an identity crisis than Zope 2 has currently. People know what to expect when they download and install Zope 2. With Zope 3, currently it's rather confused. Anyway, you misunderstood what Andreas meant when he said Zope has an identity crisis. *Zope* has an identity crisis. What is Zope? Can you give an answer? Is it Zope 2 or Zope 3? Is it an application or a framework or a set of libraries? We can't even say it properly for Zope 3: is Zope 3 a set of libraries or a framework or a web application server? We have an identity crisis. I'd say; Zope 3 is a bunch of technologies for building (web) applications in the form of an integrate set of Python libraries. There are different web application frameworks that make use of these Zope 3 technologies: * Zope 2 * the Zope 3 web application server (which needs another name in my opinion, as it's too confusing with "Zope 3 the set of libraries") * Grok * potentially others The Zope project aims to develop the underlying technologies and the web application servers on top of it. When you get "Zope" you get it in one of the above web application framework flavors. It's hardly a perfect story. To simply matters for myself, I'm focusing on marketing Grok, and in strong association with this, the Zope 3 technologies that Grok would be nothing without. The advantage of calling it something else than "Zope" is that you don't get caught up in the identity crisis so much. Regards, Martijn

Stephan Richter wrote:

On Saturday 06 October 2007 13:14, Andreas Jung wrote:

...

...

You are using 7 times the term "Zope2" and 9 times "Zope 3" and also "Plone 3.0" in this small text. Can you try to describe this without "2 or 3" in "Zope *"? I guess not, right? s/Zope 2/Zope application server s/Zope 3/Zope components

I personally feel quiet offended to see Zope 3 degraded to a set of components. Zope 3 in itself is also an application server; Zope 2, on the other hand, is an application.

You have a point here. Zope 3 is an application server. Zope 2 is an application/application server. Grok is a self-proclaimed web framework. They all share common components which I'd like to call "the Zope Libraries" (zope.*). Zope is a diverse community, but there's unity in the libraries. This is what Zope 3 is mostly about. The Zope 3 app server is this one special configuration where zope.app.publication and zope.app.securitypolicy is used. There are, in fact, many other possible uses of those libraries without having to call it "Zope 3". zope3-dev is really about discussing those libraries. Sometimes we also talk about the app server, but that happens rarely if you think about it.

...

...

I really don't care about how it is called, but I'm sure we need some naming convention and since we have one, I don't see any reason to change this. As said: there was a big discussion on the terms "Zope 2" and "Zope 3" during the last DZUG conference. Bringing it to the point: the terms "zope 2" and "zope 3" should die. There's only 'Zope'.

I have not been involved in this discussion. Having discussions like this during a conference is good as a starting point, but should never be seen as a canonical decision.

I don't think there's been a canonical decision. But I think it's one of the challenges that the ZF board is supposed to address. This is, after all, what the community governance is for.

...

Although you are a Zope component-only developer you can not ignore the dependent applications and framework.

So you are saying I have to change Zope 3's story to cope with Zope 2's identity crisis? Honestly, degrading Zope 3 to a set of libraries and components is marketing poisoning for people deploying pure Zope 3 applications.

Nobody's trying to do that. We didn't "explode" Zope 3 because Zope 2 could cope better with it that way. It happened out of other reasons. You know that. You can't ignore the fact that the Zope Libraries are used elsewhere. That doesn't mean I'm not encouraging people to use Zope3-the-app server. We should just think about what Zope3-the-app server really is. It's just a special configuration of those libraries. And it's just one possible one (Grok is another possible one, for example). I think we should give both of those as well as Zope 2 an adequate place in Zope's story. Ignoring that all three exist and thinking they are separate from each other is wishful thinking. -- http://worldcookery.com -- Professional Zope documentation and training

On 10/6/07, Roger Ineichen <dev@projekt01.ch> wrote:

You are using 7 times the term "Zope2" and 9 times "Zope 3" and also "Plone 3.0" in this small text. Can you try to describe this without "2 or 3" in "Zope *"? I guess not, right?

Now you are being silly. :-) He was writing a text about how small the difference was between Zope2 and Zope3 developer. How would he do that without using those words, so you suggest?

You also use the term "Plone 3.0" which you implie that we know that you mean the Plone which uses Zope 3 components.

No, he explicitly says that Plone 3.0 has a heavy use of Zope 3 components. That is not an "implication".

You are respecting the postifx 3.0 in the Plone world but not for Zope? why?

Nobody in the plone world is taking about Plone 3 developers and Plone 2 developers.

I'm a little confused and don't understand why you are lobbing for such a renaming and at the same time you are using this terms so heavy.

What renaming is he lobbying for? This is not about renaming anything. I think this discussion would be more constructive if you put more of your time into trying to understand what other say instead of trying to misinterpret them. -- Lennart Regebro: Zope and Plone consulting. http://www.colliberty.com/ +33 661 58 14 64

Hi Andreas. Let me say I see the development paradigms as being the following without prejudice to any application that depends upon zope 3. Respectfully, no one is building walls. my contribution to the discussion is not about isolating folks but of the reality of the software differences. zope 3 - an open framework - no borders, no boundaries - write and think as a python programmer. In essence zope 3 is is a framework without a frame. This fact that exists in this form gives it its elegance and power. It does not need to be an application and is more interesting when it is not. zope 2 - an application tied strongly the cmf with the notion of a cms as the app. It is self contained and it is able to absorb zope 3 packages and technologies. I see plone as an application layer build on top of the zope 2 application. The fact that zope 3 is not specifically an application, nor a traditional framework is also what can make it difficult for folks to distinguish zope 3 as something special. You only understand this once you are able to see it for what it is. To the uninitiated it may just seem a library of packages (and well, that's missing the point :-)) When one looks at the collection of software that makes up the python language, they see an elegant way to create. Zope 3 is like this and you are free to create anything you wish. Folks looking for containment within a framework will look for traditional solutions that confine their development within a container with strict rules and one way to do it all. This has strong points but the least of those is flexibility and diversity. Think if our creator had thought of only one way to create an animal and the possibilities and opportunities lost to create all the diversity we see on our planet. I've developed in zope2 and recognize and respect it as a powerful web platform that answers specific solutions. For me, considerable flexibility was lost when you are not programming as a python programmer and programming for the api of the application. I have always wanted what zope 3 provides. I do not want to see it given any other ground or see the development of zope 3 pushed or pulled by interests that best serve one application or another. Zope 2, Plone 3, SchoolTool, Grok, Bebop, and many commercial interests and projects including those by Lovely and others are beginning to show how diverse Zope 3 can be (and all have an interest in the development of zope 3). I should say this diversity extends to desktop applications as well as the web. Personally, I see zope 2 and 3 as distinctly different. The development is different and the goals are different. Collaboration is always a good idea but in the same way that any programmer depending upon zope 3 packages will want to maintain an interest in zope 3 development. I also see zope 2 developers in the same context as other application developers that utilize zope3 in their efforts. Collaboration can occur freely without merging the specific development lists or interests of grok-dev, zope-dev, plone and other application development (that would have simililar interests) in the development list of zope 3. I don't see "zope" as a synonym for zope 2 and zope 3 either, any more that I could see it as a synonym for SchoolTool and zope3 or Grok and zope 3 (though obviously all a part of the zope community with a special interest in zope 3). Common ground and unified forums for the community is a different interest than merging development lists for the software. zope 2 and zope 3 share the same name but it my opinion calling it all "zope" is really a bad idea and perpetuates a problem. Given the way history has unfolded, i'd have rather seen zope 3 given a new name, and have had an opportunity to have dissociated itself from zope 2 in a clear way without the premise or goal of trying to fold zope 2 'the application" and zope 3 "the framework without a frame" together. It is alright (and frankly realistic) to suggest we have two software lines here that are very different. Personally, I don't see these ever being the same and future 'marketing' efforts should respect this if marketing is a concern. The notion of the zope 3 application is fading as it should with the developments of the last year. I wouldn't want to see zope 3 revert to something or extend parts that have it looking like the zope 2 of four years ago for the sake of unifying the developer community under a generic "zope" flag. In any case, long message, but I hope this clarifies my view on this. Regards, David Andreas Jung wrote:

--On 6. Oktober 2007 12:03:06 -0300 David Pratt <fairwinds@eastlink.ca> wrote:

...

I agree with you Roger. I want things to stay as they are for the same reasons. I have great respect for Zope 2 developers however there there are two development paradigms at play that are fundamentally incompatible despite the inclusion of component architecture in Zope 2.

What do you man by "two development paradigms"?

Please don't build a wall between Zope 2 and Zope 3 developers. Most "old-school" Zope 2 developers are doing development also with Zope 3 components and Zope 3 techniques. Look at Plone 3.0 and its heavy usage of Zope 3 techniques...impressing. The Zope 3 development paradigms are highly accepted by most Zope 2 core developers...we are all sitting in the same boat. There is a fundamental difference in the Zope 2 and Zope 3 architecture but little difference between the paradigms how we should design and write software on top of the Zope platform in the future.

The distinction between Zope 2 and Zope 3 must disappear. We must speak of "Zope". Everything else is counterproductive when it comes to promoting Zope. There is only one Zope developer community and most of us have a Zope 2 and a Zope 3 hat on (others have a CMF or a Plone head). An artificial separation between Zope 2 and Zope 3 developers is undesirable in my opinion.

Andreas

Andreas Jung wrote:

We don't need to start a discussion about the architecture.

Apparently we do as since we are talking about zope 3's development forum. This is where discussions and decisions for zope 3 occur and I don't want this necessarily combined and heavily influenced by zope 2 development. Zope 2 is a single application that depends on zope 3. Both

versions have a different history and a different architecture but they serve basically the same purpose: building web apps in the first place.

Certainly the same can be said for all other applications with a dependency on zope 3. I would not expect these lists to be folded into zope3-dev or vice versa. Folks with an interest will simply subscribe to the lists they wish to monitor.

And both versions play nicely together. I assume there are currently much more Zope 2 developers or Zope 2 developers also developing with Zope 3 than pure Zope 3 developers...so it is basically having the pure Zope 3 developers together with all other Zope developers. It would be dangerous to split up both parties.

I'm not sure where you are going with this but it is disconcerting when you start pointing to how many folks are doing this or doing that. Because there are more zope 2 developers is also the reason I that folks that perpetuate thought and progress on the zope 3 ought to be able to do it without the dominating influence of any dependent project. You seem to make the assumption that pure zope 3 developers would want or welcome this influence. I see this threatening and analogous to inviting lobbyists in government to govern the country. Zope 3 technologies are being used in zope 2 and things being learned and they play well together. Ok, that is good. Surely there can be dialog with zope 2 development without consuming the communication channels and project structures of zope 3. I think if the tables were turned you could see the point I am making more clearly. You wouldn't want someone saying look "We are bigger than you and we're moving in. By the way were merging our development lists we are planning on assuming your identity also. We're now all now just "zope". Zope 2 developers need to know what's going on

in Zope 3 _and_ vis-versa. The initial argument about more email traffic on a common list is only a spurious argument. Both -dev lists mostly contain posting with reasonable subjects....scanning some more mails per day really is not an issue. I am also subscribed to the zope3-dev list and I am not reading everything but at least watching the list gives me an impression about current discussions and current issues that might be of interest for the Zope 2 world.

Yes, subscribing to the list would be appropriate but merging the lists is what we are talking about. The arguments you use here give me the impression that zope 3 is in jeopardy of being hijacked for use within zope 2 and rebranded 'zope'. This is not something I wish to consider and would sooner see zope 3 fork than see zope 3 incrementally consumed like this. Regards, David

Hi Dieter. Zope 2 is one application among many dependent upon zope 3. Zope 3 is different software than zope 2. It has a community of pure zope 3 developers (that I don't believe the suggestion of folding the lists together adequately considers). Folks have been developing and collaborating on zope2 five and zope 3 all along with success. More so, I get the impression that the unstated goal here is to assimilate zope 3 into a different notion of 'zope' that would further obfuscate it as a framework (under the influence of zope2). Zope 3 stands on its own as a framework and I sure hope I am wrong about how I have been interpreting the dialog. If the objective is simply working together and staying better informed, it does not require a merged list to accomplish this. The objective of the zope3-dev list is to serve the development interests of zope3. Folks with input or who wish to monitor this should subscribe to the list. Regards, David Dieter Maurer wrote:

David Pratt wrote at 2007-10-7 12:17 -0300:

...

... Zope 2 is a single application

Are you sure you know Zope2 ?

David Pratt wrote at 2007-10-8 00:21 -0300:

Zope 2 is one application among many dependent upon zope 3. Zope 3 is different software than zope 2.

I do not argue with you that Zope3 is "different software than Zope 2". What I argue about is "Zope 2 is an application". I have seen hundreds of applications built on top of Zope 2, long before someone thought about Zope 3. I interpret this as: "Zope 2 is not an application but a web application framework". Recently some applications make not only use of Zope 2 but also of Zope 3 (prominent example is Plone 3). But Zope 2 itself is still only slightly dependent on Zope 3. -- Dieter

Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:

Waiting-for-this-discussion-to-die-down-ly

I just counted votes here, there was 11 positive votes and 2 negative votes. +1 (Baiju M) +100 (Philipp von Weitershausen) +1 (Michael R. Bernstein) +1 Lennart Regebro +1 Andreas Jung +1 Jens Vagelpohl +1 Chris Withers +1 Martijn Faassen +1 Wichert Akkerman +1 Jodok Batlogg +1 Tres Seaver -1 Stephan Richter -1 Roger Ineichen Jim, I think you can proceed with merge now. Regards, Baiju M