[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] status of Zope versus zope?

[Jim Fulton]

Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Jim Fulton wrote:
> 
>> Martijn Faassen wrote:
> 
> 
>> I chose alternative 4 from:
>>
>> http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/RenameTheZopePackage
>>
>> As that seemed to be the most popular, although I personnally prefer
>> 3.
>>
>>> Resolving this peacefully is becoming more urgent for me as I'd
>>> like to be able to use Five (Zope 3 on Zope 2) on Windows
>>> eventually.
>>
>>
>>> Is there some workaround?
>>
>>
>> Sure, put "zope" in a different directory.
> 
> 
> I don't understand what this means. A different directly on the python 
> path?

Yes.

>>> I'd really hate to have to wait for a mythical
>>> Zope 2 release (likely not 2.8) that renamed Zope to something
>>> else, for instance.
>>
>>
>> I had planned to do this in Zope 2.8, mainly because I wanted to
>> include zope.interface in 2.8, mainly to address the difficulty of
>> installing the Interface shim.  Your recent work makes the shim
>> unnecessary.  I'm really anxious to get 2.8 out, so I'm inclined not
>> to include zope.interface in 2.8, and thus not deal with the zope vs
>> Zope issue in 2.8.
> 
> 
> So what does this mean for Five on Windows?

It means that you should tell people to put zope in
a different directory than Zope.  Both of these directories need
to be on the Python path.

Alternatively, we can continue as planned to include zope.interface
in 2.8, in which case we'll need to implement option 4 of the
above proposal.

I'll note that 2.8 has some huge potential benefits:

- MVCC

- Cyclic GC of zope objects

that make it increasingly desireable yo get it out as soon
as we can.

Jim

-- 
Jim Fulton           mailto:jim at zope.com       Python Powered!
CTO                  (540) 361-1714            http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation     http://www.zope.com       http://www.zope.org