Re: Zope3 name

On Thursday, Feb 13, 2003, at 15:06 US/Central, Seb Bacon wrote:

> I disagree.  The proposal to call the-thing-being-worked-on-now "Zope 
> 3x" is misleading, because there is very little continuity between it 
> and Zope 2.

Perhaps. You're still seeing it in too short a term. I imagine there 
will be less discontinuity between Zope 2.99 and Zope 3.0 than between 
Zope 2.6.1 and Zope 3.0.

> I have been convinced that the proposal to call 
> the-thing-which-will-be-compatible-with-Zope2 "Zope 3" is not 
> misleading.

Well, if it's not misleading, why is this argument still going on?

> "Zope Component Server" suggests just about the right continuity to 
> me,  because it starts with the word "Zope" and is descriptive of what 
> it does (q.v. Joseph's recent mail). I don't think it masks anything.

Except that it obfuscates its entirety for the sake of warm fuzzies.

> The only thing "Zope Component Server" *loses* is a higher version 
> number than Zope 2.  It *gains* some descriptive qualifiers.  I think 
> the bandying about of a "3" version number at this stage is precisely 
> the cause of the current confusion in the community.

Have you even read the road map? It doesn't _need_ the descriptive 
qualifiers. It's not 3, the integer, or even 3.0, the float. Perhaps we 
should call it 3i, the imaginary, Platonic in form, that we are merely 
ever-approaching?

> I have still to be convinced that any obscuring is being proposed. 
> Could you try again?

Zope Component Server sounds too much like a subset of the features and 
capabilities of Zope.

>> That is why i suggested being explicit about the backwards
>> incompatibility, rather than choosing what i see as an arbitrarily
>> incongurous name for the intermediate release.
>
> I don't agree that it is "arbitrarily incongruous" - I think it is 
> meaningful.  I also think we may come up with something better.  But 
> really, I think "Zope Component Server" is OK.

Of course you do. You dreamed it up. It fits your internal model. 
Whether your internal model with all its inferential baggage will 
translate to the average consumer (to whom Zope 3x isn't even being 
targeted at the moment) is being questioned.

> However, I acknowledge that there may be a problem in giving an 
> intermediate release a special name at all, because it may appear and 
> then disappear again.

Hence... Zope 3x

> I posed a question in a previous post, relating to this point: is 
> there any future for a "pure" Zope 3, without Zope 2 cruft?  Or is my 
> whole idea of "cruft" a misconception?

I would imagine that Zope 3x is your 'pure' Zope 3. I further imagine 
that as the version gap narrows, ideas and implementations will cross 
the divide in both directions, further blurring the distinction between 
the two.

> Again, I don't regard what I am proposing as an "esoteric trick" or as 
> employing "obscurity".

Because, you're not advocating the education that this is an 
experimental version of Zope 3. "Zope Component Server" sidesteps the 
thrust of the marketing you're trying to create by turning attention to 
some vague product-sounding-but-maybe-more-so-where-is-the-brochure 
thing. When you have to start explaining that "Well, Zope Component 
Server is what is gonna become Zope 3 when more migration tools become 
available but until then..." the customer might just ask, "So it's like 
an experimental version of Zope 3?"

Zac