[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] Two visions

[Martijn Faassen]

Hey,

I have another comment about Zope 5, sparked by something Jeff Shell wrote.

Currently we have a clear path to evolution. Zope 3 evolves at its pace, 
and Zope 2 evolves mostly by catching up with Zope 3, replacing more and 
more bits with Zope 3 bits, which often takes considerable ingenuity. We 
have shown that we have enough developers to sustain this both for Zope 
3 and Zope 2 development. We know how to do it.

Any shift to a Zope 5 vision where Zope 3 and Zope 2 are profiles of the 
same application would require a considerable investment of development 
time that we don't have, or alternatively, endless waiting.

Zope 5 will in fact be very similar to one interpretation of the dreaded 
X in Zope X3: a version of Zope 3 that's backwards compatible with Zope 
2. I'm skeptical about ever getting this done in revolution style 
development, and holding it up as the future will prompt remarks like 
"When is Zope 5 going to be done?" while nobody is actually doing 
anything about it. This is very very bad marketing. I really really want 
to avoid a repeat of history here...

Meanwhile, I think the current path gets us to a future where the 
difference between Zope 2 and Zope 3 will become less, and it will be 
more and more possible to write Zope 3 applications in Zope 2, and more 
and more Zope 2 pieces will be replaced with pieces from Zope 3. This 
vision has been sold to the community already and we're on track.

So, my proposal would be to tone down the vision to what we have 
already: a co-evolving Zope 3 and Zope 2, with Zope 2 following and Zope 
3 leading (or Zope 2 driving Zope 3 forward, however you want to see 
it). No renaming necessary. No change of course necessary. Zope 2 can 
stick to Zope 2 features as long as necessary so there's no rush to 
replicate Zope 2 functionality in Zope 3 any time soon. At the same 
time, Zope 2 requirements can drive the evolution of Zope 3.

I know I sound conservative here, but I'm actually happy with the way 
things are working now. Let's not fix what isn't broken. We can make 
incremental steps to making it better, and I'm glad people are starting 
to understand the ideas behind Five, but I don't see the need for a 
change of direction.

Regards,

Martijn