[Zope3-Users] Re: [Zope3-dev] Visionaire! (All your problems, solved)

[Lennart Regebro]

The idea has some benefits, but I'm not very sure it's a good idea. If
it should be implemented, this is how I would like to see it:

On 3/2/06, Jeff Shell <eucci.group at gmail.com> wrote:
> - Zope 3 CA: The Zope Component Architecture. Core services. Would
>   include zope.publisher and most other current top level zope.* things.
>   Usable as a library, as a publisher for other environments, perhaps as a
>   simple standalone server. Easy to deploy against WSGI, Paste.deploy,
>   whatever.

No, I don't think it should be easy to deploy against anything in. It
should be so stripped down that it isn't about web anymore. No server.
Just the component architecture. The component architecture is a great
architecture even for non-web development. zope.interfaces,
.components, .i18n*, .testing. Maybe even .configuration and .thread?

Now, if you want to use the CA for web deployment, but not the whole
Zope, you can easily add the publisher and pagetemplates and so on to
your toolstack. But the component architecture is NOT about web.

> - Zope 3 AS: The Zope 3 Application Server. A Zope 3 CA stack using the
>   ZODB, ILocation, and most of the zope.app services but without any content
>   objects. Perhaps only an application server configuration skin (process
>   management) but no ZMI. Maybe have the current configuration installable as
>   an option.

This should be Zope3 as it is now. A couple of things can go away.
Maybe the rotterdam skin, I don't know. Definitely the default Folder
objects and such. People, especially Zope2 people, think that you are
supposed to use them. You aren't, you are supposed to build your own.

> - Zope Suite (or Zope Web or Zope DE): This is the full "application server"
>   perhaps Jim is envisioning. A comprehensive web based user interface, based
>   on features (and implementations) of both Zope 2 and Zope 3 application
>   servers and offerings.

I don't see a need for this. I think this level should be the "end
product", ie, Plone 3, CPS4, Silva Something. A midlevel "Suite" with
which you still can't do shit without development seems pointless.
Separate product packages like ecm support, and Zope2 backwards
compatibility and such makes sense. The "Suite" does not.

--
Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo     http://www.nuxeo.com/
CPS Content Management     http://www.cps-project.org/