[Zope-dev] Re: Re: Two visions

[Rob Miller]

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 09:43:03 -0330, Rocky Burt wrote:

> On Tue, 2006-28-02 at 13:21 +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
>> [snip]
>> > I would vote for spelling out Zed (which would also be a little easier
>> > to google but might create trademark problems). The namespace package
>> > could either be 'z' or 'zed'.
>> > 
>> > Then again, I really should take Jim's side and stay out of naming
>> > decisions.
>> 
>> Let's please not have a naming discussion again. I think renaming Zope 3
>> is really bad marketing myself and naming discussions mostly a waste of
>> time...
> 
> As I sit here spending sooo much time reading this thread

yes, it's a big'un alright...

> 1) The Zope 3 name and brand is a marketing disaster (from my perspective)
> -- to be honest there's really no way I could see this actually getting
> worse by coming up with a new name.  How many times in the #plone channel
> do we get asked, "Does Plone run on Zope 3.1/3.2?" or, "When will Plone
> run on Zope 3.2" to which we say "no" to the first question and "dunno" to
> the second question.

+100.  it's a confusing mess to anyone who isn't spending as much time as
we all are reading this stuff every day.  come to think of it, it's a
confusing mess to us, too.
 
> If we started treating zope 3 as just a framework and put energies back
> into maintaing/refactoring/beautifying zope2 as an application server that
> uses that framework at its core (this is essentially what zope 2.8+ is
> working towards with Five IMHO) then this could help several ways:
>   1) we stop spending time reproducing zope2 app server functionality in
> zope3
>   2) we stop building more into zope2 as a framework (i think this is
> pretty much already happening)

i agree with this sentiment, although i do recognize that there are folks
who are currently using zope3 as an app-server, and who (understandably)
don't want to have anything to do w/ anything zope2 related, ever again. 

> Anyway, this still keeps things very confusing from a naming perspective
> (mostly for new adopters).  So .... having said all of that, I am actually
> +1 on Jim's proposal #2.  What I see from that (someone correct me if I'm
> wrong) is the following:
> 
>   1) rename zope 3 the framework as Z or zopelib or Zed or something
> sensical that doesn't confuse the early adopter's conquest of trying to
> figure out which zope to start with
>   2) Make zope 2 the application server acquire the name "zope" once
> again and be the only app server.  This could only work (from a new
> adopter's perspective) if either the application server is given a new
> name or given a version number higher than 3.

i support this idea as well, but i think we have to recognize that there
will be some parallel app-server-ness happening for a while, until z2
becomes so thin that we have achieved complete convergence btn the
z2/five-based and the z3-based app server platforms that are already being
used.

-r