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

[Jim Fulton]

Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Jim Fulton wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 17:29 +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Fulton wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> I see Zope 5 being a combination of Zope 2 and Zope 3, keeping
>>>> the best of both.  
>>>
>>>
>>> I think we already have Zope 5, and it's called Zope 2.9.
>>>
>>> Perhaps I'm wrong. If so, how does Zope 5 differ from Zope 2.9?
>>
>>  
>> Are you kidding?
> 
> 
> No, I'm not kidding. Zope 2.9 is the closest thing to Zope 5 that we 
> have today, that people can work with. Zope 2.10 will hopefully be 
> closer too, and so on.

It is not very close. It is not close enough, IMO, to call it Zope 5.

>> Zope 5 will be backward compatible with Zope 2 and Zope 3.  It will
>> allow configurations that look a lot like Zope 3.
> 
> 
> Sounds like the original vision of Zope 3 without the X. I thought we 
> never got around to developing this stuff the last time.

Actually, no.  We originally said that we would provide a transition
path.  I said over and over that this was *not* going to be backward
compatibility.  I guess this was too complex a message.  I think your
post proves that it was.

I saw Five as a key enabling technology for the transition.  For some time,
I said that Five would gradually narrow the gap between Zope 2 and Zope 3
until the transition would be very small.

 > What changed?

I assumed that Zope 3 would become more like Zope 2.  That it would
provide much the same features, if in somewhat different forms.  This is
still possible, but I don't really seeit happening.  No matter how hard you
and others work on Five, it's gonna be pretty hard for people to transition
to Zope 3 if it doesn't provide the features they need.


>> It will have the best of both systems, and improvements to both.
> 
> 
> Zope 2.9 has a lot of two systems. It doesn't have improvements to both, 
> as we see that's clearly the mandate of the Zope 3 project, not of the 
> Zope 2 or Five projects. We improve Zope 2 by taking bits of Zope 3. 
> Mixing these things up into a Zope 5 puddle risks mixing it all up a lot.

Yes it does.  I think the risks of continuing two application server
projects for the forseeable future has greater risks.


> When do you think all this work will be finished?

I don't know.  I don't think it has to be that far away,
I think it could happen by the end of 2007, but that depends
on resources.

 > Who will work on it?

There are a lot of people working on Five and on leveraging
Zope 3 in Zope 2 now.  There are a lot more people working on
these efforts than are working on Zope 3.  I think that having a
single application server, which is an evolution of Zope 2 will
encourage a lot more people to invest time.

> What do we do in the mean time? What do we tell people?

We tell people where we're going.  We tell people that
Zope 2 is not a dead end.  That they aren't second class
citizens if they stay with Zope 2.

We tell the people using Zope 3 now that they won't be left
high and dry. That the future single application server will
run there applications too.  That it can be configured to look
a lot like what they're used to now.

> Do you really feel comfortable promising all that?

Based on what I've seen over the last year, I feel comfortable
setting it as a goal/vision/roadmap.  I can't promise anything.
I never suggested I was.

> How are we not on the course to reaching this featureset, eventually, 
> anyway?

I think we're moving along pretty well.

> I don't see how *saying* what Zope 5 will contain will make it *exist* 
> any time sooner.

You seem to be arguing against a roadmap, which is puzzling.

Obviously, predictions of the future are imperfect.

> These sound like useful evolution proposals for Zope 2 
> and Zope 3 to me...

Yes

> The current story of Zope 2, Five and Zope 3 gets us in the right 
> direction (Zope 5, if you want to call it that, though I would 
> definitely want to introduce yet another name in the mix), step by step. 
> We don't promise too much to people. We don't raise the wrong 
> expecations anymore.

What expectations did we raise?

AFAIK, the official story is that Zope 3 will eventually replace
Zope 2 and that Zope 2 will be augmented with Zope 3 technology
to make the transition easier. I don't think there are many people,
if any, really working on making Zope 3 a credible replacement for
Zope 2.  There are people working on making it into something
wonderful, but not a replacement for Zope 2.  Do you agree that
this is the current story?  If not, and if *we* cannot agree on
what the current story is, think how confused everyone else must
be.


 > Everyone in the community is on board.

I think many people in the community are extreemely confused.

> We are already doing the work that's required to reach the ideal of 
> "Zope 5".

Exactly.  The new vision I described attempts to capture reality.
There are two parts to the reality:

1. Most of the effort in the Zope community is going toward improving
    Zope 2 with Zope 3 technology.

2. People working on Zope 3 don't want it to become like Zope 2.
    They don't want it to have the same features.  Many of them don't
    even want it to be an application server, or think that that is
    its primary role.  There is nothing wrong with what they want,
    but it isn't compatible with the vision of replacing Zope 2
    with Zope 5.

 > You could rename Zope 2.10 to Zope 5.0,

Not and be consistent with the definition I have for Zope 5 in
*my* post,  Zope 2.10 is not Zope 5.  Zope 5 will be ready
when it will support, possibly in separate configurations, both
Zope 2 and Zope 3 applications.

 > but I don't see what
> good that would do except to confuse people.

Right. I never suggested that we rename Zope 2.10 to Zope 5.
You have done this and it is confusing people.


 > It won't contain the
> features you list unless someone actually does all that work.

That's right.  Someone needs to do the work.  Similarly, Zope 3
won't be a replacement for Zope 2 unless someone does the work.
What's your point? That we shouldn't plan?  That we shouldn't
have a common vision for where we're going, or communicate that
vision?

 > The
> alternative is to put Zope 5 in the nebulous future when all the work 
> you list is done, and it'll be just like our mythical "Zope 3 without 
> the X" then - confusing people and raising the wrong expectations.

The Zope 3 that provides support for transitioning from Zope 2
is "mythical" in the sense that it doesn't exist.  It is something
that we've been working on.  Are you going to call anything that
doesn't exist "mythical"?   I don't see how that is useful or productive.

As a community, I think we need a common vision of what we're working
toward.  It appears that we have that today.

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