Re: Zope3 name

--=-CBXS+50yKrnbpIrh2OeI
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



--=-CBXS+50yKrnbpIrh2OeI
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Description: Forwarded message - Re: [Zope2-migration] Zope3 name
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Subject: Re: [Zope2-migration] Zope3 name
From: Didier Georgieff <[email protected]>
To: Paul Everitt <[email protected]>
Cc: seb bacon <[email protected]>, [email protected]
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: 
Message-Id: <1044987035.1687.5.camel@dg>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.1- 
Date: 11 Feb 2003 19:16:20 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 11:44, Paul Everitt wrote:

> I had a couple of business people, e.g. folks in the government, ask me 
> such questions last week at the conference.  I'm sure my responses gave 
> the impression of some rather tortured tap dancing.

I was not there, but you can count me in on those.
Actually we are still wondering (i'm on Z3 and on Z2migration list)
where we will put our efforts by the end of the year (hopefully CPS3
will take the component road and will be close to Z3 concepts).

But it's a real concern, especially when solding the tools to other
ITmanager on otter government agencies.

> > One reasonable solution to the perception problem still appears to be 
> > to change the name of Zope 3 now before it is too late.

> > I would prefer Zope 3000 

Seems too marketing, and too close to Z3.

> > or Zope Component Server, for example.

Brilliant. This one seems a real winner to me.
Only by looking at the name i can see that it's a __major__ change in
the architecture, it reinforce the plug & &play side, i don't expect a
full compatibility (but i can smell that some sort of smooth upgrade
path will be given).

In fact i'll use this concept name for explaining that Z2/Z3 thing from
now. And from what i heard be sure that this semantic thing is really
important for Zope adoption.

About the migration path :
When we swithed from Popoto to CPS, we just had a script for converting
content objects. This was usefull and we didn't need to use the 'old'
product, because cps gave us the same functions than popoto. I guess
this would be the same in quite few use case.


> When Apache moved to Apache 2, it wasn't a complete rewrite, but was 
> probably a substantial rewrite.  However, as far as I know, the old API 
> is mostly supported.  They simply called it Apache 2, the next version 
> of Apache.

Yes, but for now i just don't see why i should consider Apache2 instead
of my rock solid Apache1 just by looking at the name or caracterictics.

As an Apache User the internal changes doesn't speaks to me.

> It seems like a valid argument.  I agree that calling it Zope 3 will 
> give a false impression to people that have already invested in the 
> Zope world.

It already does confuse people.

> IMO, Zope 3 is being positioned as appealing to people that want to 
> start over in Zope, not really for people that want to preserve their 
> investment.  I believe the position on the latter group is: "Stick with 
> Zope 2".

I'm ready to think that "Zope Component Server" should change this in a good way (tm).

Didier.


--=-CBXS+50yKrnbpIrh2OeI
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Zope2-migration mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope2-migration

--=-CBXS+50yKrnbpIrh2OeI--