[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] Clarification re: Zope X3.1, 2.8

[Martijn Faassen]

Chris McDonough wrote:
[snip]
> I assume these caveats are spelled out here because Z3 developers don't
> want to slow down Z3 development to test/maintain Z2 compatibility.  I
> know a lot about Z2 code, but I know very little about Z3 code.  I'd
> like that to change, but it's likely that I'll just not have the
> bandwidth to make sure Z3-inside-Z2 works.  If that just means I can't
> use Z3 features but nothing else breaks, it's probably fine, but if Z3
> integration actively breaks Z2, it's likely I'll just need for some
> extended period of time to continue to use and maintain 2.7.

Several of us *do* have the bandwidth to make sure Zope 3 in Zope 2 
works, as we're actively using it.

Five has been from the start a project that explicitly tried to 
interfere with both Zope 2 and Zope 3 as little as possible. If you 
don't use the Zope 3 features in Zope 2, they're just not there.

> It'd be great if active Z3 developers could actually help make new
> releases of Z2 once Five is integrated but the above makes it sound like
> a "we'll throw it over the wall and you make it work" sort of thing.  If
> it's the latter, maybe as devil's advocate, I need to ask what the point
> is here?

I think there's a need for active Five developers who do this. Luckily 
such a group of us exists. We'll make sure Zope 3 in Zope 2 works, Zope 
2 developers just focus on Zope 2, and Zope 3 developers focus on Zope 
2. We'll try to keep out of your hair as much as possible, and you stay 
out of our hair, and we'll all cooperate just fine. We've been doing 
this for over half a year already, after all.

As the systems start to merge more in the future, this will get more 
complicated. But again, Five has been designed to minimize this problem, 
by carefully being minimally invasive in its Zope 2 integration. We're 
already using Five with large, complicated systems such as Plone, CPS 
and Silva, so I think we've been successful.

> It appears there is an assumption that merging Z2 and Z3 code within Z2
> itself is an unmitigated good thing, but IMHO, each is complicated
> enough in their own right that I'd personally prefer to be dealing with
> one or the other at any given time and not both.  This isn't exactly
> idle whining either, I need to do this when I maintain Z4I code, and
> it's definitely not a walk in the park; it's moderately difficult to do
> and also difficult find people who have the skills to help too.
> 
> Does anyone else share this skepticism or am I about to get shouted
> down? ;-)

I've already done all this worrying for you and did the right thing with 
Five, so you're just ignorant. ;)

This is a distribution deal more than an integration deal. We're 
packaging stuff together so we can start using Five more in our 
projects, and deploy it a lot more easily.

Regards,

Martijn