[Zope-dev] Two visions?

[Geoff Davis]

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 10:38:03 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:

>> I think that the idea of giving Zed its own, distinct identity is great. 
>> Zope 3 is a _huge_ overhaul and it needs to be obvious to the world that
>> it is dramatically better than crufty old Zope 2.  Zope 3 then becomes the
>> Zed application server; Zope 2 is getting Zed retrofits via Five, and the
>> two will eventually converge into Zope 5 (or Zope 2.27 or whatever).
> 
> Ooops.  OK I guess I was clear as mud. :)  My idea for "Z", pronounced "zed"
> or whatever the naming gods decide is that it was *not* an app server.
> It is an un-app-server. :)  A collection of technologies that are useful
> by themselves, to support an app server and useful to build non-app-server
> applications, web or otherwise.

No, I think I understood you.  I was being sloppy in my use of language. 
I should have said something more like "Zope 3 then becomes an application
server built around the Zed library".

> I think that Z3 is better than Z2 in a lot of ways.  I also think that
> Z2 is more mature and complete.  I really want us to combine those efforts.
> I think we've achieved enough and learned enough with Zope 3 that we
> can now bring that to bear and make Zope 2 better, refactoring the cruft
> away and applying the lessons we've learned with Zope 3.  (Note that Zope 3
> is not crust free.)  I don't really care what this thing ends up being called,
> except that it *must* be called Zope.

Yes, I agree.  "Zope" is the app server.  I think that is consistent with
the past use of the brand.

> This paragraph makes me think I was clear. Yes, we need to follow Ian Bicking's
> advice and release our technology in bite-sized chunks.  I'm hopeful that the
> packaging efforts underway will lead to more of that.

Yes, and the use of the new name "Z" or "Zed" is a way to emphasize that
the Zed library is NOT a big, monolithic app server; rather, it's
something new and cool.

Geoff