Discussion:
[Zope3-dev] I'd lobe to merge the zope3-dev and zope-dev lists
Jim Fulton
2007-10-04 14:57:17 UTC
Permalink
Any objections?

This would basically involve retiring the zope3-dev list and moving
zope3 developers to the zope-dev list.

Jim

--
Jim Fulton
Zope Corporation
Baiju M
2007-10-04 15:02:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Fulton
Any objections?
This would basically involve retiring the zope3-dev list and moving
zope3 developers to the zope-dev list.
+1

What about retiring #zope3-dev IRC channel and only using #zope ?

Regards,
Baiju M
Jim Fulton
2007-10-04 15:47:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baiju M
Post by Jim Fulton
Any objections?
This would basically involve retiring the zope3-dev list and moving
zope3 developers to the zope-dev list.
+1
What about retiring #zope3-dev IRC channel and only using #zope ?
I though of that. Historically, the #zope channel was much chattier,
which makes it hard for me to deal with. When #zope3-dev was set up,
I asked that people keep the noise level down, which has made it much
more useful, imo.

Maybe we should keep these issues separate for now.

Jim

--
Jim Fulton
Zope Corporation
Lennart Regebro
2007-10-05 09:38:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Fulton
I though of that. Historically, the #zope channel was much chattier,
which makes it hard for me to deal with. When #zope3-dev was set up,
I asked that people keep the noise level down, which has made it much
more useful, imo.
Maybe we should keep these issues separate for now.
Agreed. We need one channel that is at least vaguely "hardcore" and
one that is not. I never get any useful answers on #zope about
anything. :-)
--
Lennart Regebro: Zope and Plone consulting.
http://www.colliberty.com/
+33 661 58 14 64
Michael R. Bernstein
2007-10-04 17:03:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baiju M
Post by Jim Fulton
Any objections?
This would basically involve retiring the zope3-dev list and moving
zope3 developers to the zope-dev list.
+1
What about retiring #zope3-dev IRC channel and only using #zope ?
No. #zope is roughly the equivalent of the main zope list. There is no
#zope-dev channel.

Now, someone might suggest that the zope3-users list should be merged
with the main zope list, but that someone wouldn't be me. At least not
as long as there are separate releases being made.

- Michael Bernstein
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope3-dev/attachments/20071004/d6bb0e76/attachment.bin
Lennart Regebro
2007-10-04 17:19:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael R. Bernstein
Post by Baiju M
Post by Jim Fulton
This would basically involve retiring the zope3-dev list and moving
zope3 developers to the zope-dev list.
+1
+1
Post by Michael R. Bernstein
Post by Baiju M
What about retiring #zope3-dev IRC channel and only using #zope ?
No. #zope is roughly the equivalent of the main zope list. There is no
#zope-dev channel.
Renaming #zope3-dev to #zope-dev would make sense to me though.
--
Lennart Regebro: Zope and Plone consulting.
http://www.colliberty.com/
+33 661 58 14 64
Chris Withers
2007-10-05 08:10:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lennart Regebro
Post by Michael R. Bernstein
Post by Baiju M
Post by Jim Fulton
This would basically involve retiring the zope3-dev list and moving
zope3 developers to the zope-dev list.
+1
+1
Post by Michael R. Bernstein
Post by Baiju M
What about retiring #zope3-dev IRC channel and only using #zope ?
No. #zope is roughly the equivalent of the main zope list. There is no
#zope-dev channel.
Renaming #zope3-dev to #zope-dev would make sense to me though.
+1 from me too :-)

Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk
Martin Aspeli
2007-10-04 21:28:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael R. Bernstein
Post by Baiju M
Post by Jim Fulton
Any objections?
This would basically involve retiring the zope3-dev list and moving
zope3 developers to the zope-dev list.
+1
What about retiring #zope3-dev IRC channel and only using #zope ?
No. #zope is roughly the equivalent of the main zope list. There is no
#zope-dev channel.
Now, someone might suggest that the zope3-users list should be merged
with the main zope list, but that someone wouldn't be me. At least not
as long as there are separate releases being made.
In Plone, we have a -user and -dev list, and a single chatroom, #plone.
We do have #plone-framework for the framework team and release manager,
but this is much quieter and everyone who's in #plone-framework is also
in #plone.

Obviously, this is about preference, but we find that having everyone in
the same chatroom helps keep people in touch. Reading multiple mailing
lists is not so hard - paying attention to multiple chatrooms at once
is, and a -user room is pretty much useless if there are no experienced
developers paying attention.

Also, on the subject of renaming things: Calling it zope-devel or
similar may not be ideal, since people who develop with Zope (don't we
all?) assume this is for any developers, not just core developers.
Something like zope-general and zope-coredev may be better.

Martin
--
Acquisition is a jealous mistress
Lennart Regebro
2007-10-05 09:21:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Aspeli
Also, on the subject of renaming things: Calling it zope-devel or
similar may not be ideal, since people who develop with Zope (don't we
all?) assume this is for any developers, not just core developers.
Something like zope-general and zope-coredev may be better.
+1 to also rename the dev lists to something that makes it more
obvious that we are talking about development *of* zope, not *with*
zope.
--
Lennart Regebro: Zope and Plone consulting.
http://www.colliberty.com/
+33 661 58 14 64
Jodok Batlogg
2007-10-06 09:17:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baiju M
Post by Jim Fulton
Any objections?
This would basically involve retiring the zope3-dev list and moving
zope3 developers to the zope-dev list.
+1
What about retiring #zope3-dev IRC channel and only using #zope ?
separate issue, but +1
Post by Baiju M
Regards,
Baiju M
_______________________________________________
Zope3-dev mailing list
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/batlogg.lists%
40lovelysystems.com
--
"Complex is better than complicated."
-- The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters

Jodok Batlogg, Lovely Systems
Schmelzh?tterstra?e 26a, 6850 Dornbirn, Austria
phone: +43 5572 908060, fax: +43 5572 908060-77


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2454 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope3-dev/attachments/20071006/7e38eefe/smime-0001.bin
Philipp von Weitershausen
2007-10-04 15:16:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Fulton
This would basically involve retiring the zope3-dev list and moving
zope3 developers to the zope-dev list.
+100
--
http://worldcookery.com -- Professional Zope documentation and training
Stephan Richter
2007-10-04 20:15:51 UTC
Permalink
This would basically involve retiring the zope3-dev list and moving ?
zope3 developers to the zope-dev list.
-1. I do not follow zope-dev at all and the traffic is pretty high there.

Regards,
Stephan
--
Stephan Richter
CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student)
Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training
Andreas Jung
2007-10-04 20:28:02 UTC
Permalink
--On 4. Oktober 2007 15:15:40 -0400 Stephan Richter
Post by Stephan Richter
This would basically involve retiring the zope3-dev list and moving ?
zope3 developers to the zope-dev list.
-1. I do not follow zope-dev at all and the traffic is pretty high there.
Not as high as on the zope3-dev list.

+1 for phasing the "zope3" term out.

-aj
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope3-dev/attachments/20071004/827f5f24/attachment.bin
Philipp von Weitershausen
2007-10-04 22:56:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephan Richter
Post by Jim Fulton
This would basically involve retiring the zope3-dev list and moving
zope3 developers to the zope-dev list.
-1. I do not follow zope-dev at all and the traffic is pretty high there.
If you "do not follow it at all", how would you know that "the traffic
is pretty high there"?

It is, in fact, much lower than on zope3-dev. Here's an overview of the
number of messages in both lists in the last 12 months (cross-posts are
counted twice):

zope-dev zope3-dev
------------------------
Oct 158 238
Nov 119 235
Dec 65 231
Jan 168 300
Feb 127 178
Mar 164 300
Apr 118 282
May 89 297
Jun 121 126
Jul 52 274
Aug 91 303
Sep 101 411

So zope3-dev has anything between 1.5 and 5 times the number of postings
per month than zope-dev.

If you're not interested in certain topics, then I suggest you simply
ignore those emails.
--
http://worldcookery.com -- Professional Zope documentation and training
Philipp von Weitershausen
2007-10-04 22:58:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephan Richter
Post by Jim Fulton
This would basically involve retiring the zope3-dev list and moving
zope3 developers to the zope-dev list.
-1. I do not follow zope-dev at all and the traffic is pretty high there.
But pretty low there, if you take out the cross-posts. :)
... and the automatic test runner which reports at least once a day. I
thought we agreed to remove it from this list and move it elsewhere?
--
http://worldcookery.com -- Professional Zope documentation and training
Chris Withers
2007-10-05 08:09:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Fulton
Any objections?
This would basically involve retiring the zope3-dev list and moving
zope3 developers to the zope-dev list.
+1 from me :-)

Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk
Roger Ineichen
2007-10-06 02:18:33 UTC
Permalink
Betreff: [Zope3-dev] I'd lobe to merge the zope3-dev and
zope-dev lists
Any objections?
This would basically involve retiring the zope3-dev list and moving
zope3 developers to the zope-dev list.
-1

Not that I'm not interested in what's going on in Zope 2,
but the two list let me easy separate this two different
topics. And it will allow me to read the Zope2 mails in
digest mode if I don't have time to read all.

Another reason for not to switch is the mailinglist observation
in the different web apps out there. They are very usefull.

btw,
a cool app, this is another reason to keep the
trunk up and running. I guess they checkout
our code and count the lines ;-). See:
http://www.ohloh.net/projects/4495?p=Zope+3

e.g.
Codebase 97,598 LOC
Effort (est.) 25 Person Years
Project Cost $1,348,258

Regards
Roger Ineichen
Jim
--
Jim Fulton
Zope Corporation
_______________________________________________
Zope3-dev mailing list
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/dev%40projekt01.ch
Andreas Jung
2007-10-06 05:10:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ineichen
Betreff: [Zope3-dev] I'd lobe to merge the zope3-dev and
zope-dev lists
Any objections?
This would basically involve retiring the zope3-dev list and moving
zope3 developers to the zope-dev list.
-1
Not that I'm not interested in what's going on in Zope 2,
but the two list let me easy separate this two different
topics. And it will allow me to read the Zope2 mails in
digest mode if I don't have time to read all.
That's a bit shortsighted. First we want to get rid of the term
"Zope 3" in the future (since it confuses ppl). Second: decisions and
discussons made in the Zope components world have an impact on the Zope 2
world. Sorry to say but the Zope components world is not an island.

Andreas
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope3-dev/attachments/20071006/ccdad4c6/attachment.bin
Benji York
2007-10-06 13:14:17 UTC
Permalink
we want to get rid of the term "Zope 3" in the future
That's news to me. Perhaps for some definition of "we".
--
Benji York
Senior Software Engineer
Zope Corporation
Andreas Jung
2007-10-06 13:58:33 UTC
Permalink
we want to get rid of the term "Zope 3" in the future
The confusion for people with the terms and Zope 2 and Zope 3 was
one of major topics of the last german Zope conference. And there
were also talks between the DZUG and the ZF on this topic and there
was agreement that we should speak of "the zope application" and "zope
components" - however this topic belongs on desk of the Zope foundation.

-aj
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope3-dev/attachments/20071006/3974f1d9/attachment.bin
David Pratt
2007-10-06 16:03:10 UTC
Permalink
I agree with you Roger. I want things to stay as they are for the same
reasons. I have great respect for Zope 2 developers however there there
are two development paradigms at play that are fundamentally
incompatible despite the inclusion of component architecture in Zope 2.

Regards,
David
Post by Roger Ineichen
Betreff: [Zope3-dev] I'd lobe to merge the zope3-dev and
zope-dev lists
Any objections?
This would basically involve retiring the zope3-dev list and moving
zope3 developers to the zope-dev list.
-1
Not that I'm not interested in what's going on in Zope 2,
but the two list let me easy separate this two different
topics. And it will allow me to read the Zope2 mails in
digest mode if I don't have time to read all.
Another reason for not to switch is the mailinglist observation
in the different web apps out there. They are very usefull.
btw,
a cool app, this is another reason to keep the
trunk up and running. I guess they checkout
http://www.ohloh.net/projects/4495?p=Zope+3
e.g.
Codebase 97,598 LOC
Effort (est.) 25 Person Years
Project Cost $1,348,258
Regards
Roger Ineichen
Jim
--
Jim Fulton
Zope Corporation
_______________________________________________
Zope3-dev mailing list
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/dev%40projekt01.ch
_______________________________________________
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Andreas Jung
2007-10-06 16:20:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Pratt
I agree with you Roger. I want things to stay as they are for the same
reasons. I have great respect for Zope 2 developers however there there
are two development paradigms at play that are fundamentally incompatible
despite the inclusion of component architecture in Zope 2.
What do you man by "two development paradigms"?

Please don't build a wall between Zope 2 and Zope 3 developers. Most
"old-school" Zope 2 developers are doing development also with Zope 3
components and Zope 3 techniques. Look at Plone 3.0 and its heavy usage of
Zope 3
techniques...impressing. The Zope 3 development paradigms are highly
accepted by most Zope 2 core developers...we are all sitting in the same
boat. There is a fundamental difference in the Zope 2 and Zope 3
architecture but little difference between the paradigms how we should
design and write software on top of the Zope platform in the future.

The distinction between Zope 2 and Zope 3 must disappear. We must speak of
"Zope". Everything else is counterproductive when it comes to promoting
Zope. There is only one Zope developer community and most of us have a Zope
2 and a Zope 3 hat on (others have a CMF or a Plone head). An artificial
separation between Zope 2 and Zope 3 developers is undesirable in my
opinion.

Andreas
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope3-dev/attachments/20071006/8fdad785/attachment.bin
Roger Ineichen
2007-10-06 17:26:28 UTC
Permalink
Hi Andreas
Post by Andreas Jung
What do you man by "two development paradigms"?
Please don't build a wall between Zope 2 and Zope 3
developers. Most "old-school" Zope 2 developers are doing
development also with Zope 3 components and Zope 3
techniques. Look at Plone 3.0 and its heavy usage of Zope 3
techniques...impressing. The Zope 3 development paradigms are
highly accepted by most Zope 2 core developers...we are all
sitting in the same boat. There is a fundamental difference
in the Zope 2 and Zope 3 architecture but little difference
between the paradigms how we should design and write software
on top of the Zope platform in the future.
The distinction between Zope 2 and Zope 3 must disappear. We
must speak of "Zope". Everything else is counterproductive
when it comes to promoting Zope. There is only one Zope
developer community and most of us have a Zope
2 and a Zope 3 hat on (others have a CMF or a Plone head). An
artificial separation between Zope 2 and Zope 3 developers is
undesirable in my opinion.
You are using 7 times the term "Zope2" and 9 times "Zope 3"
and also "Plone 3.0" in this small text. Can you try to describe
this without "2 or 3" in "Zope *"? I guess not, right?

I really don't care about how it is called, but I'm sure we
need some naming convention and since we have one, I don't see
any reason to change this.

You also use the term "Plone 3.0" which you implie that we
know that you mean the Plone which uses Zope 3 components.

You are respecting the postifx 3.0 in the Plone world but
not for Zope? why?

I'm a little confused and don't understand why you are lobbing
for such a renaming and at the same time you are using this
terms so heavy.

Regards
Roger Ineichen
Post by Andreas Jung
Andreas
Andreas Jung
2007-10-06 18:14:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ineichen
Hi Andreas
Post by Andreas Jung
What do you man by "two development paradigms"?
Please don't build a wall between Zope 2 and Zope 3
developers. Most "old-school" Zope 2 developers are doing
development also with Zope 3 components and Zope 3
techniques. Look at Plone 3.0 and its heavy usage of Zope 3
techniques...impressing. The Zope 3 development paradigms are
highly accepted by most Zope 2 core developers...we are all
sitting in the same boat. There is a fundamental difference
in the Zope 2 and Zope 3 architecture but little difference
between the paradigms how we should design and write software
on top of the Zope platform in the future.
The distinction between Zope 2 and Zope 3 must disappear. We
must speak of "Zope". Everything else is counterproductive
when it comes to promoting Zope. There is only one Zope
developer community and most of us have a Zope
2 and a Zope 3 hat on (others have a CMF or a Plone head). An
artificial separation between Zope 2 and Zope 3 developers is
undesirable in my opinion.
You are using 7 times the term "Zope2" and 9 times "Zope 3"
and also "Plone 3.0" in this small text. Can you try to describe
this without "2 or 3" in "Zope *"? I guess not, right?
s/Zope 2/Zope application server
s/Zope 3/Zope components
Post by Roger Ineichen
I really don't care about how it is called, but I'm sure we
need some naming convention and since we have one, I don't see
any reason to change this.
As said: there was a big discussion on the terms "Zope 2" and
"Zope 3" during the last DZUG conference. Bringing it to the point:
the terms "zope 2" and "zope 3" should die. There's only 'Zope'.
Post by Roger Ineichen
You also use the term "Plone 3.0" which you implie that we
know that you mean the Plone which uses Zope 3 components ?
You are respecting the postifx 3.0 in the Plone world but
not for Zope? why?
Plone is an application but not a framework. Plone does not have
an identify crisis as Zope.
Post by Roger Ineichen
I'm a little confused and don't understand why you are lobbing
for such a renaming and at the same time you are using this
terms so heavy.
Why? There are much, much more applications deployed on top of the Zope
application server than on top of the Zope component architecture. There is
a huge installation of Plone site on top of the Zope app server and now the
Zope component framework. Although you are a Zope component-only developer
you can not ignore the dependent applications and framework. The Zope
application server core team is always in communication with the CMF and
Plone teams (we play nicely together (mostly)) and I do expect the same
within the Zope world. The merging of the lists is just one multiple steps
for bringing the two side together.


Andreas
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope3-dev/attachments/20071006/db595949/attachment.bin
Stephan Richter
2007-10-06 18:40:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Jung
Post by Roger Ineichen
You are using 7 times the term "Zope2" and 9 times "Zope 3"
and also "Plone 3.0" in this small text. Can you try to describe
this without "2 or 3" in "Zope *"? I guess not, right?
s/Zope 2/Zope application server
s/Zope 3/Zope components
I personally feel quiet offended to see Zope 3 degraded to a set of
components. Zope 3 in itself is also an application server; Zope 2, on the
other hand, is an application.
Post by Andreas Jung
Post by Roger Ineichen
I really don't care about how it is called, but I'm sure we
need some naming convention and since we have one, I don't see
any reason to change this.
As said: there was a big discussion on the terms "Zope 2" and
the terms "zope 2" and "zope 3" should die. There's only 'Zope'.
I have not been involved in this discussion. Having discussions like this
during a conference is good as a starting point, but should never be seen as
a canonical decision.
Post by Andreas Jung
Although you are a Zope component-only ?developer
you can not ignore the dependent applications and framework.
So you are saying I have to change Zope 3's story to cope with Zope 2's
identity crisis? Honestly, degrading Zope 3 to a set of libraries and
components is marketing poisoning for people deploying pure Zope 3
applications.

Regards,
Stephan
--
Stephan Richter
CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student)
Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training
Andreas Jung
2007-10-06 19:45:52 UTC
Permalink
--On 6. Oktober 2007 13:40:46 -0400 Stephan Richter
Post by Stephan Richter
Post by Andreas Jung
Although you are a Zope component-only ?developer
you can not ignore the dependent applications and framework.
So you are saying I have to change Zope 3's story to cope with Zope 2's
identity crisis? Honestly, degrading Zope 3 to a set of libraries and
components is marketing poisoning for people deploying pure Zope 3
applications.
Marketing 'Zope' to new people is one point. Doing "internal marketing"
for Zope is another big problem. By "internal marketing" I mean the
following: my major customer is one of biggest Zope 2 users in Germany. We
use Zope in various large scale installations for internal apps, for
portals, shops and have more 100K Zope 2 installations running on Windows
Desktops alone in Germany. I am trying to promote Zope 3 technology since
years within our big development department. And it always comes to
discussions and misunderstandings as soon the terms Zope 2 and Zope 3 pop up
(...is it compatible?...how can we integrate it with current apps?..and so
on). It's not about degrading Zope 3 to whatever...it's basically about
names and the reception of the term 'Zope'. Accidentally Jim brought up
the same point within his posting today about what Zope 3 stands for. Zope 3
right now is both an application server and a set of components. Let's call
the component part 'Zope components' and the app server part 'Bob'.

How Grok? Grok does not compete with Zope app server since it has complete
different name. We can tell the people "Grok is a framework for building
webapps on top of Zope technology which implicit configuration etc...".
With Zope 2 and Zope 3 we have always the problem answering "can I run my
Zope 2 XXX software with Zope 3"...that's why we need a clear idea about
what 'Zope ' means. You're right.this is about marketing - both to Zope
developers and non-Zope developers...but a clear and consistent marketing
is absolutely necessary since we compete with other frameworks. Zope is no
longer the top dog within the world of Python frameworks.

Andreas



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope3-dev/attachments/20071006/a6ebcb70/attachment.bin
Philipp von Weitershausen
2007-10-06 23:39:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephan Richter
Post by Andreas Jung
Post by Roger Ineichen
You are using 7 times the term "Zope2" and 9 times "Zope 3"
and also "Plone 3.0" in this small text. Can you try to describe
this without "2 or 3" in "Zope *"? I guess not, right?
s/Zope 2/Zope application server
s/Zope 3/Zope components
I personally feel quiet offended to see Zope 3 degraded to a set of
components. Zope 3 in itself is also an application server; Zope 2, on the
other hand, is an application.
You have a point here.

Zope 3 is an application server.
Zope 2 is an application/application server.
Grok is a self-proclaimed web framework.

They all share common components which I'd like to call "the Zope
Libraries" (zope.*).

Zope is a diverse community, but there's unity in the libraries. This is
what Zope 3 is mostly about. The Zope 3 app server is this one special
configuration where zope.app.publication and zope.app.securitypolicy is
used. There are, in fact, many other possible uses of those libraries
without having to call it "Zope 3".

zope3-dev is really about discussing those libraries. Sometimes we also
talk about the app server, but that happens rarely if you think about it.
Post by Stephan Richter
Post by Andreas Jung
Post by Roger Ineichen
I really don't care about how it is called, but I'm sure we
need some naming convention and since we have one, I don't see
any reason to change this.
As said: there was a big discussion on the terms "Zope 2" and
the terms "zope 2" and "zope 3" should die. There's only 'Zope'.
I have not been involved in this discussion. Having discussions like this
during a conference is good as a starting point, but should never be seen as
a canonical decision.
I don't think there's been a canonical decision. But I think it's one of
the challenges that the ZF board is supposed to address. This is, after
all, what the community governance is for.
Post by Stephan Richter
Post by Andreas Jung
Although you are a Zope component-only developer
you can not ignore the dependent applications and framework.
So you are saying I have to change Zope 3's story to cope with Zope 2's
identity crisis? Honestly, degrading Zope 3 to a set of libraries and
components is marketing poisoning for people deploying pure Zope 3
applications.
Nobody's trying to do that. We didn't "explode" Zope 3 because Zope 2
could cope better with it that way. It happened out of other reasons.
You know that.

You can't ignore the fact that the Zope Libraries are used elsewhere.
That doesn't mean I'm not encouraging people to use Zope3-the-app
server. We should just think about what Zope3-the-app server really is.
It's just a special configuration of those libraries. And it's just one
possible one (Grok is another possible one, for example). I think we
should give both of those as well as Zope 2 an adequate place in Zope's
story. Ignoring that all three exist and thinking they are separate from
each other is wishful thinking.
--
http://worldcookery.com -- Professional Zope documentation and training
Dieter Maurer
2007-10-07 20:13:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephan Richter
...
I personally feel quiet offended to see Zope 3 degraded to a set of
components. Zope 3 in itself is also an application server; Zope 2, on the
other hand, is an application.
Maybe, but then Zope 2 is an application with variants that are
not recognizable as variants of the same application ;-)
--
Dieter
Philipp von Weitershausen
2007-10-07 20:49:35 UTC
Permalink
Zope 3 is a bunch of technologies for building (web) applications in the
form of an integrate set of Python libraries.
Let's call those the "Zope Libraries". Because by now we have far more
than just the ones that came from exploding Zope 3 (e.g. all the ones
from the 'z3c' namespace).
There are different web application frameworks that make use of these
* Zope 2
* the Zope 3 web application server (which needs another name in my
opinion, as it's too confusing with "Zope 3 the set of libraries")
Why not calling it by the name of the *single* package that implements
it, zope.app.publication. That's where everything that makes Zope 3 is
implemented:

- traversal semantics, such as the look up of views
- security (by applying security proxies)
- transaction integration
* Grok
* potentially others
The Zope project aims to develop the underlying technologies and the web
application servers on top of it. When you get "Zope" you get it in one
of the above web application framework flavors.
It's hardly a perfect story. To simply matters for myself, I'm focusing
on marketing Grok, and in strong association with this, the Zope 3
technologies that Grok would be nothing without. The advantage of
calling it something else than "Zope" is that you don't get caught up in
the identity crisis so much.
--
http://worldcookery.com -- Professional Zope documentation and training
Lennart Regebro
2007-10-07 12:26:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ineichen
You are using 7 times the term "Zope2" and 9 times "Zope 3"
and also "Plone 3.0" in this small text. Can you try to describe
this without "2 or 3" in "Zope *"? I guess not, right?
Now you are being silly. :-) He was writing a text about how small the
difference was between Zope2 and Zope3 developer. How would he do that
without using those words, so you suggest?
Post by Roger Ineichen
You also use the term "Plone 3.0" which you implie that we
know that you mean the Plone which uses Zope 3 components.
No, he explicitly says that Plone 3.0 has a heavy use of Zope 3
components. That is not an "implication".
Post by Roger Ineichen
You are respecting the postifx 3.0 in the Plone world but
not for Zope? why?
Nobody in the plone world is taking about Plone 3 developers and Plone
2 developers.
Post by Roger Ineichen
I'm a little confused and don't understand why you are lobbing
for such a renaming and at the same time you are using this
terms so heavy.
What renaming is he lobbying for? This is not about renaming anything.

I think this discussion would be more constructive if you put more of
your time into trying to understand what other say instead of trying
to misinterpret them.
--
Lennart Regebro: Zope and Plone consulting.
http://www.colliberty.com/
+33 661 58 14 64
Dieter Maurer
2007-10-06 19:54:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Jung
...
The distinction between Zope 2 and Zope 3 must disappear. We must speak of
"Zope". Everything else is counterproductive when it comes to promoting
Zope. There is only one Zope developer community and most of us have a Zope
2 and a Zope 3 hat on (others have a CMF or a Plone head). An artificial
separation between Zope 2 and Zope 3 developers is undesirable in my
opinion.
+1
--
Dieter
David Pratt
2007-10-07 05:47:02 UTC
Permalink
Hi Andreas. Let me say I see the development paradigms as being the
following without prejudice to any application that depends upon zope 3.
Respectfully, no one is building walls. my contribution to the
discussion is not about isolating folks but of the reality of the
software differences.

zope 3 - an open framework - no borders, no boundaries - write and think
as a python programmer. In essence zope 3 is is a framework without a
frame. This fact that exists in this form gives it its elegance and
power. It does not need to be an application and is more interesting
when it is not.

zope 2 - an application tied strongly the cmf with the notion of a cms
as the app. It is self contained and it is able to absorb zope 3
packages and technologies. I see plone as an application layer build on
top of the zope 2 application.

The fact that zope 3 is not specifically an application, nor a
traditional framework is also what can make it difficult for folks to
distinguish zope 3 as something special. You only understand this once
you are able to see it for what it is. To the uninitiated it may just
seem a library of packages (and well, that's missing the point :-)) When
one looks at the collection of software that makes up the python
language, they see an elegant way to create. Zope 3 is like this and you
are free to create anything you wish.

Folks looking for containment within a framework will look for
traditional solutions that confine their development within a container
with strict rules and one way to do it all. This has strong points but
the least of those is flexibility and diversity. Think if our creator
had thought of only one way to create an animal and the possibilities
and opportunities lost to create all the diversity we see on our planet.

I've developed in zope2 and recognize and respect it as a powerful web
platform that answers specific solutions. For me, considerable
flexibility was lost when you are not programming as a python programmer
and programming for the api of the application.

I have always wanted what zope 3 provides. I do not want to see it given
any other ground or see the development of zope 3 pushed or pulled by
interests that best serve one application or another. Zope 2, Plone 3,
SchoolTool, Grok, Bebop, and many commercial interests and projects
including those by Lovely and others are beginning to show how diverse
Zope 3 can be (and all have an interest in the development of zope 3). I
should say this diversity extends to desktop applications as well as the
web.

Personally, I see zope 2 and 3 as distinctly different. The development
is different and the goals are different. Collaboration is always a good
idea but in the same way that any programmer depending upon zope 3
packages will want to maintain an interest in zope 3 development.

I also see zope 2 developers in the same context as other application
developers that utilize zope3 in their efforts. Collaboration can occur
freely without merging the specific development lists or interests of
grok-dev, zope-dev, plone and other application development (that would
have simililar interests) in the development list of zope 3.

I don't see "zope" as a synonym for zope 2 and zope 3 either, any more
that I could see it as a synonym for SchoolTool and zope3 or Grok and
zope 3 (though obviously all a part of the zope community with a special
interest in zope 3). Common ground and unified forums for the community
is a different interest than merging development lists for the software.
zope 2 and zope 3 share the same name but it my opinion calling it all
"zope" is really a bad idea and perpetuates a problem.

Given the way history has unfolded, i'd have rather seen zope 3 given a
new name, and have had an opportunity to have dissociated itself from
zope 2 in a clear way without the premise or goal of trying to fold zope
2 'the application" and zope 3 "the framework without a frame" together.
It is alright (and frankly realistic) to suggest we have two software
lines here that are very different. Personally, I don't see these ever
being the same and future 'marketing' efforts should respect this if
marketing is a concern.

The notion of the zope 3 application is fading as it should with the
developments of the last year. I wouldn't want to see zope 3 revert to
something or extend parts that have it looking like the zope 2 of four
years ago for the sake of unifying the developer community under a
generic "zope" flag. In any case, long message, but I hope this
clarifies my view on this.

Regards,
David
Post by Andreas Jung
Post by David Pratt
I agree with you Roger. I want things to stay as they are for the same
reasons. I have great respect for Zope 2 developers however there there
are two development paradigms at play that are fundamentally incompatible
despite the inclusion of component architecture in Zope 2.
What do you man by "two development paradigms"?
Please don't build a wall between Zope 2 and Zope 3 developers. Most
"old-school" Zope 2 developers are doing development also with Zope 3
components and Zope 3 techniques. Look at Plone 3.0 and its heavy usage
of Zope 3
techniques...impressing. The Zope 3 development paradigms are highly
accepted by most Zope 2 core developers...we are all sitting in the same
boat. There is a fundamental difference in the Zope 2 and Zope 3
architecture but little difference between the paradigms how we should
design and write software on top of the Zope platform in the future.
The distinction between Zope 2 and Zope 3 must disappear. We must speak
of "Zope". Everything else is counterproductive when it comes to
promoting Zope. There is only one Zope developer community and most of
us have a Zope 2 and a Zope 3 hat on (others have a CMF or a Plone
head). An artificial separation between Zope 2 and Zope 3 developers is
undesirable in my opinion.
Andreas
Andreas Jung
2007-10-07 06:52:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Pratt
Hi Andreas. Let me say I see the development paradigms as being the
following without prejudice to any application that depends upon zope 3.
Respectfully, no one is building walls. my contribution to the discussion
is not about isolating folks but of the reality of the software
differences.
zope 3 - an open framework - no borders, no boundaries - write and think
as a python programmer. In essence zope 3 is is a framework without a
frame. This fact that exists in this form gives it its elegance and
power. It does not need to be an application and is more interesting when
it is not.
zope 2 - an application tied strongly the cmf with the notion of a cms as
the app. It is self contained and it is able to absorb zope 3 packages
and technologies. I see plone as an application layer build on top of the
zope 2 application.
We don't need to start a discussion about the architecture. Both versions
have a different history and a different architecture but they serve
basically the same purpose: building web apps in the first place.
And both versions play nicely together. I assume there are currently
much more Zope 2 developers or Zope 2 developers also developing with Zope
3 than pure Zope 3 developers...so it is basically having the pure Zope 3
developers together with all other Zope developers. It would be dangerous
to split up both parties. Zope 2 developers need to know what's going on in
Zope 3 _and_ vis-versa. The initial argument about more email traffic on a
common list is only a spurious argument. Both -dev lists mostly contain
posting with reasonable subjects....scanning some more mails per day really
is not an issue. I am also subscribed to the zope3-dev list and I am not
reading everything but at least watching the list gives me an impression
about current discussions and current issues that might be of interest
for the Zope 2 world.

Andreas
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope3-dev/attachments/20071007/241fd06f/attachment.bin
David Pratt
2007-10-07 16:18:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Jung
We don't need to start a discussion about the architecture.
Apparently we do as since we are talking about zope 3's development
forum. This is where discussions and decisions for zope 3 occur and I
don't want this necessarily combined and heavily influenced by zope 2
development. Zope 2 is a single application that depends on zope 3.
Both
Post by Andreas Jung
versions have a different history and a different architecture but they
serve basically the same purpose: building web apps in the first place.
Certainly the same can be said for all other applications with a
dependency on zope 3. I would not expect these lists to be folded into
zope3-dev or vice versa. Folks with an interest will simply subscribe to
the lists they wish to monitor.
Post by Andreas Jung
And both versions play nicely together. I assume there are currently
much more Zope 2 developers or Zope 2 developers also developing with
Zope 3 than pure Zope 3 developers...so it is basically having the pure
Zope 3 developers together with all other Zope developers. It would be
dangerous
to split up both parties.
I'm not sure where you are going with this but it is disconcerting when
you start pointing to how many folks are doing this or doing that.
Because there are more zope 2 developers is also the reason I that folks
that perpetuate thought and progress on the zope 3 ought to be able to
do it without the dominating influence of any dependent project. You
seem to make the assumption that pure zope 3 developers would want or
welcome this influence. I see this threatening and analogous to inviting
lobbyists in government to govern the country.

Zope 3 technologies are being used in zope 2 and things being learned
and they play well together. Ok, that is good. Surely there can be
dialog with zope 2 development without consuming the communication
channels and project structures of zope 3.

I think if the tables were turned you could see the point I am making
more clearly. You wouldn't want someone saying look "We are bigger than
you and we're moving in. By the way were merging our development lists
we are planning on assuming your identity also. We're now all now just
"zope".

Zope 2 developers need to know what's going on
Post by Andreas Jung
in Zope 3 _and_ vis-versa. The initial argument about more email traffic
on a common list is only a spurious argument. Both -dev lists mostly
contain posting with reasonable subjects....scanning some more mails per
day really is not an issue. I am also subscribed to the zope3-dev list
and I am not reading everything but at least watching the list gives me
an impression
about current discussions and current issues that might be of interest
for the Zope 2 world.
Yes, subscribing to the list would be appropriate but merging the lists
is what we are talking about. The arguments you use here give me the
impression that zope 3 is in jeopardy of being hijacked for use within
zope 2 and rebranded 'zope'. This is not something I wish to consider
and would sooner see zope 3 fork than see zope 3 incrementally consumed
like this.

Regards,
David
Dieter Maurer
2007-10-07 20:38:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Pratt
...
Zope 2 is a single application
Are you sure you know Zope2 ?
--
Dieter
David Pratt
2007-10-08 04:21:48 UTC
Permalink
Hi Dieter. Zope 2 is one application among many dependent upon zope 3.
Zope 3 is different software than zope 2. It has a community of pure
zope 3 developers (that I don't believe the suggestion of folding the
lists together adequately considers).

Folks have been developing and collaborating on zope2 five and zope 3
all along with success. More so, I get the impression that the unstated
goal here is to assimilate zope 3 into a different notion of 'zope' that
would further obfuscate it as a framework (under the influence of
zope2). Zope 3 stands on its own as a framework and I sure hope I am
wrong about how I have been interpreting the dialog.

If the objective is simply working together and staying better informed,
it does not require a merged list to accomplish this. The objective of
the zope3-dev list is to serve the development interests of zope3. Folks
with input or who wish to monitor this should subscribe to the list.

Regards,
David
Post by Dieter Maurer
Post by David Pratt
...
Zope 2 is a single application
Are you sure you know Zope2 ?
Lennart Regebro
2007-10-08 07:05:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Pratt
Hi Dieter. Zope 2 is one application among many dependent upon zope 3.
Zope 3 is different software than zope 2. It has a community of pure
zope 3 developers (that I don't believe the suggestion of folding the
lists together adequately considers).
Again, these lists are about the development of, not development with.
There are indeed some people developing only Zope3 but not involved in
Zope2. I don't think they are very many. There are none involved in
Zope 2 that are not involved in Zope 3.
Post by David Pratt
More so, I get the impression that the unstated
goal here is to assimilate zope 3 into a different notion of 'zope'
It's not unstated, although admittedly, it is in my opinion off topic
for the discussion.
Post by David Pratt
that would further obfuscate it as a framework
Nope.
Post by David Pratt
(under the influence of zope2).
Nope.
Post by David Pratt
Zope 3 stands on its own as a framework and I sure hope I am
wrong about how I have been interpreting the dialog.
You are indeed, yes.
--
Lennart Regebro: Zope and Plone consulting.
http://www.colliberty.com/
+33 661 58 14 64
Roger Ineichen
2007-10-08 08:14:30 UTC
Permalink
Hi Lennart
-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Auftrag von Lennart Regebro
[...]
Again, these lists are about the development of, not development with.
Can you explain why do you think this makes a difference?

Regards
Roger Ineichen
--
Lennart Regebro: Zope and Plone consulting.
http://www.colliberty.com/
+33 661 58 14 64
_______________________________________________
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists -
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Lennart Regebro
2007-10-08 08:45:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ineichen
Hi Lennart
-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Auftrag von Lennart Regebro
[...]
Again, these lists are about the development of, not development with.
Can you explain why do you think this makes a difference?
Because developing WITH Zope2 and Zope 3 are very different. The
development OF Zope 2 and Zope 3 are not, sincem as mentioned, the
development OF Zope 2 is almost exclusively about getting more Zope 3
into Zope 2.

The differences in community that is taken as a reason for keeping the
lists separate simply do not exist anymore. There are no separate Zope
2 developers anymore.
--
Lennart Regebro: Zope and Plone consulting.
http://www.colliberty.com/
+33 661 58 14 64
Roger Ineichen
2007-10-08 10:36:51 UTC
Permalink
Hi Lennart
Betreff: Re: [Zope3-dev] I'd lobe to merge the zope3-dev
andzope-dev lists
[...]
Post by Roger Ineichen
Can you explain why do you think this makes a difference?
Because developing WITH Zope2 and Zope 3 are very different.
The development OF Zope 2 and Zope 3 are not, sincem as
mentioned, the development OF Zope 2 is almost exclusively
about getting more Zope 3 into Zope 2.
The differences in community that is taken as a reason for
keeping the lists separate simply do not exist anymore. There
are no separate Zope
2 developers anymore.
Ah, now I see your point.

My motivation not to merge the dev lists is another one.

I think many developer (500 subscribers) which develops
with Zope 3 watches the Zope3-dev list and if they have
questions, they will ask them on the zope3-users list.

Hm,
I think your mail also means, we can't avoid to have
Zope 2 topics on the zope3-dev list because Zope 2 is
going to move to Zope 3 and we have to exchange
information. Doesn't matter how the list is called.


Regards
Roger Ineichen
--
Lennart Regebro: Zope and Plone consulting.
http://www.colliberty.com/
+33 661 58 14 64
_______________________________________________
Zope3-dev mailing list
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/dev%40projekt01.ch
Lennart Regebro
2007-10-08 16:07:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ineichen
I think your mail also means, we can't avoid to have
Zope 2 topics on the zope3-dev list because Zope 2 is
going to move to Zope 3 and we have to exchange
information. Doesn't matter how the list is called.
Exactly.
--
Lennart Regebro: Zope and Plone consulting.
http://www.colliberty.com/
+33 661 58 14 64
Dieter Maurer
2007-10-08 19:53:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Pratt
Zope 2 is one application among many dependent upon zope 3.
Zope 3 is different software than zope 2.
I do not argue with you that Zope3 is "different software than Zope 2".

What I argue about is "Zope 2 is an application".
I have seen hundreds of applications built on top of Zope 2, long
before someone thought about Zope 3. I interpret this as:
"Zope 2 is not an application but a web application framework".

Recently some applications make not only use of Zope 2
but also of Zope 3 (prominent example is Plone 3).
But Zope 2 itself is still only slightly dependent on Zope 3.
--
Dieter
Philipp von Weitershausen
2007-10-09 05:12:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dieter Maurer
Post by David Pratt
Zope 2 is one application among many dependent upon zope 3.
Zope 3 is different software than zope 2.
I do not argue with you that Zope3 is "different software than Zope 2".
What I argue about is "Zope 2 is an application".
I have seen hundreds of applications built on top of Zope 2, long
"Zope 2 is not an application but a web application framework".
Recently some applications make not only use of Zope 2
but also of Zope 3 (prominent example is Plone 3).
But Zope 2 itself is still only slightly dependent on Zope 3.
This statement is very confusing, given that nearly all of Zope 3 ships
with Zope 2 since 2.8. So in fact a Zope 2 release depends very much on
a Zope 3.

It may be true that not much of the Zope 2 machinery uses Zope 3 (but if
you look at Zope 2.10+, you'll see that core components such as the
ZPublisher have been changed to look up views), but certainly a lot of
applications that are built with Zope 2 use the Zope 3 libraries that
ship with it, as well as the integration layer Five. This makes the Zope
3 libraries as much an integral part of Zope 2 as the "old" packages.

Waiting-for-this-discussion-to-die-down-ly

Philipp
--
http://worldcookery.com -- Professional Zope documentation and training
Baiju M
2007-10-09 06:08:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philipp von Weitershausen
Waiting-for-this-discussion-to-die-down-ly
I just counted votes here, there was 11 positive votes
and 2 negative votes.

+1 (Baiju M)
+100 (Philipp von Weitershausen)
+1 (Michael R. Bernstein)
+1 Lennart Regebro
+1 Andreas Jung
+1 Jens Vagelpohl
+1 Chris Withers
+1 Martijn Faassen
+1 Wichert Akkerman
+1 Jodok Batlogg
+1 Tres Seaver

-1 Stephan Richter
-1 Roger Ineichen

Jim, I think you can proceed with merge now.

Regards,
Baiju M

Lennart Regebro
2007-10-07 12:19:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Pratt
I agree with you Roger. I want things to stay as they are for the same
reasons. I have great respect for Zope 2 developers however there there
are two development paradigms at play that are fundamentally
incompatible despite the inclusion of component architecture in Zope 2.
Sure, but this is the lists for development *of* not development
*with* and development *of* Zope2 is nowadays almost about getting in
Zope 3-technologies into Zope2 :-)

The zope (for usage and development with Zope2) and zope3-users (which
is development with Zope3) should not be merged, I totally agree with
that.
--
Lennart Regebro: Zope and Plone consulting.
http://www.colliberty.com/
+33 661 58 14 64
Wichert Akkerman
2007-10-06 08:25:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Fulton
Any objections?
This would basically involve retiring the zope3-dev list and moving
zope3 developers to the zope-dev list.
+1

Wichert.
--
Wichert Akkerman <***@wiggy.net> It is simple to make things.
http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple.
Jodok Batlogg
2007-10-06 09:17:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Fulton
Any objections?
This would basically involve retiring the zope3-dev list and moving
zope3 developers to the zope-dev list.
+1
Post by Jim Fulton
Jim
--
Jim Fulton
Zope Corporation
_______________________________________________
Zope3-dev mailing list
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/jodok%
40lovelysystems.com
--
"Simple is better than complex."
-- The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters

Jodok Batlogg, Lovely Systems
Schmelzh?tterstra?e 26a, 6850 Dornbirn, Austria
phone: +43 5572 908060, fax: +43 5572 908060-77


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2454 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope3-dev/attachments/20071006/ecc83c9c/smime.bin
Tres Seaver
2007-10-08 16:29:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Fulton
Any objections?
This would basically involve retiring the zope3-dev list and moving
zope3 developers to the zope-dev list.
+1.


Tres.
- --
===================================================================
Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 ***@palladion.com
Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
Tres Seaver
2007-10-08 16:35:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Fulton
Any objections?
This would basically involve retiring the zope3-dev list and moving
zope3 developers to the zope-dev list.
+1.


Tres.
- --
===================================================================
Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 ***@palladion.com
Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
Loading...