[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] Two visions
Andrew Sawyers
andrew at sawdog.com
Mon Feb 27 10:53:49 EST 2006
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 10:37 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
> I'd like to get feedback on two possible visions for the future of
> Zope 2 and Zope 3.
>
> 1) Our current vision (AFAIK) is that Zope 3 will eventually
> replace Zope 2
>
> - There will be lots of overlap between the Zope 2 and Zope 3
> lifetimes. (Zope 2 might be supported more or less
> forever.)
>
> - Eventually, the gap between Zope 2 and will become very small.
> requiring a small leap.
>
> In this vision, Zope 3 would have to become a lot more like
> Zope 2, or we would lose features.
-1
>
> 2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5.
>
> - Zope 5 will be the application server generally known as Zope. It
> will be backward compatible (to the same degree that Zope 2
> releases are currently backward compatible with previous Zope 2
> releases) with Zope 2. Zope 5 will similarly be backward
> compatible with Zope 3 applications built on top of the current
> Zope 3 application server.
>
> Note that Zope 5 will leverage Zope 3 technologies to allow a
> variety of configurations, including a Zope 2-like configuration
> with implicit acquisition and through-the-web development, and a
> Zope 3-like configuration that looks a lot like the current Zope
> 3 application server. Maybe, there will be a configuration that
> allows Zope 2 and Zope 3 applications to be combined to a
> significant degree.
>
> - Zope 3 will explode. :)
>
> For many people, Zope 3 is first a collection of technologies
> that can be assembled into a variety of different applications.
> It is second a Zope 2-like application server. I think that
> these folks aren't really interested in the (Zope 2-like)
> application server.
>
> Zope 3 will continue as a project (or projects) for creating
> and refining these technologies.
>
> (It would probably make sense for this activity to to have some
> name other than "Zope". On some level, the logical name would
> be "Z" (pronounced "Zed" :). An argument against "Z" is that
> it would be hard to google for, but Google handles such queries
> quite well and I'd expect that we'd move to the top of Google Z
> search results fairly quickly. However, I'll leave naming
> decisions to experts. ;)
>
> Advantages of this vision:
>
> - Zope 2 users don't need to leave Zope 2.
>
> - Zope 3 doesn't have to reproduce all Zope 2 features.
>
> - There wouldn't be confusion about 2 Zopes.
>
> It is important that Zope 5 be backward compatible with both Zope 2
> and Zope 3, although not necessarily in the same
> configuration. Many people are building Zope 3 applications today
> and they should not be penalized.
>
> Thoughts?
+2
I personally think that one of the great things about what has come out
of Zope 3 development: other projects can use the technologies without
taking Zope 3 lock stock and barrel. I'd hate to see Zope 3 get more
girth and loose future traction because it had to be fully backwards
compatible with Zope 2. For those who wish to slowly migrate to using
Zope 3 technologies without completely rewriting their software,
evolving via Five is a fair approach.
To quote a blog I'd read earlier today: Doing little things well is a
step towards doing big things better.
Allowing others to assist in refining the little technologies which make
up Zope 3 can achieve this goal. I would fear this would be impossible
if the first vision was followed.
Andrew Sawyers
>
> Jim
>
More information about the Zope-Dev
mailing list