[Zope-dev] who wants to maintain Zope 3?

[Lennart Regebro]

On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 12:49, Hermann Himmelbauer <dusty at qwer.tk> wrote:
> I personally find it interesting that people are that fast with turning around
> and killing off things. I personally based my decision for Zope 3 on Philipps
> book ("Web Compontent Development with Zope 3"), whereas the latest edition
> came out just 1 year ago. I adapted the concepts in this book to my needs
> (e.g. by using z3c-based packages) and it's now a viable way for me and my
> projects.

It might be important to point out that this book will continue to be
relevant. That book is about ho to develop with the Zope Toolkit,
except that it didn't exist when it was written, not even as a
concept. Zope 3 was then a monolithic server. It isn't any more. The
answer is if somebody wants to maintain the Zope 3 Applictation
server, and go on to release a Zope 3.5, 3.6 etc. The libraries will
be maintained, and Zope 3 will continue to work for a long time, and
bugfixes will happen, even if no releases are done.

And we don't need to declare it dead in any way. If nobody steps up to
be the next Zope 3 maintainer, then it *is* dead, even if it isn't
declared so, and even if we don't want it to be dead. Open source is
driven by what people do. If nobody wants to maintain Zope 3, then it
will not get any more releases, no matter if we want it to be dead or
not.

> I understand that people like Zope 2 for historical reasons and Grok for it's
> simplicity, but I would really wonder that there's no target audience for
> various ideas/patterns in Zope 3 (security model, ZCML...).

There is, but those who prefer ZCML over Grok seems to gravitate
towards BFG as opposed to Zope 3.

> Moreover, I expect that there are many people like me, who started with Zope 3
> with Philipp's book, so, would we really want to - ummm - "declare them
> dead"?

It's extremely important to understand the differences between Zope 3,
and Zope 3 technologies. The only thing that looks dead is Zope 3 as a
big monolithic application server. Few people are interested in that.
You seem to be. Hence the question: Who wants to maintain it. Do you?

> If we do so, to my mind there has to be some migration path to something else,
> may it be Repoze, or whatever. But just killing off Zope 3 is like
> saying "Sorry guys, you just chose the wrong technology."

See, this is the naming problem. You did not chose the wrong
technology. You didn't even chose the wrong app server, because there
wasn't any choice. Now there is: Zope 3, Grok & BFG. All using the
same technology. So far you are one of the few having any interest in
Zope 3. Up until this thread, nobody showed any interest.

-- 
Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok
http://regebro.wordpress.com/
+33 661 58 14 64