Re: Zope3 name

Paul Everitt wrote:
>=20
> On mardi, f=E9v 11, 2003, at 20:23 Europe/Paris, Jim Fulton wrote:
>=20
>>
>> Paul Everitt wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, Feb 11, 2003, at 11:07 Europe/Paris, seb bacon wrote:
>>>
>>>> There has been a discussion about naming Zope3, which I would like=20
>>>> to revive.
>>>>
>>>> First (and what got me thinking about it again): was it appropriate=20
>>>> to call the pre-New-Year-release  an 'alpha'?  On the one hand, I=20
>>>> know Jim is keen to keep up the momentum among developers.  On the=20
>>>> other, it suggests (to me) a level of maturity which the product has=
=20
>>>> not yet reached, which could damage perceptions from the outside.
>>>
>>> I had a couple of business people, e.g. folks in the government, ask=20
>>> me such questions last week at the conference.
>>
>>
>> What were the questions?
>=20

I'm surprised you didn't know the answers to these.

> Things like, will my site still work,

For Zope 3.0, the answer is "yes, you may have to apply some conversion t=
ools".


> should I deploy a new application=20
> today or wait,

You should deploy new applications today.

 > can we use the expertise we've acquired,

Yes.

 > will Plone
> work.

Yes.

 >  The first two were the big ones with decision makers.
>=20
>>  > I'm sure my responses gave
>>
>>> the impression of some rather tortured tap dancing.
>>
>>
>> I'm puzzled by this. I thought that the schedule I posted, the note=20
>> that Rob
>> posted, and out commitment for supporting the transition would have=20
>> prepared
>> you to answer questions, which is why I'm curious about the questions.
>=20
>=20
> I'm puzzled that you're puzzled. :^)  The nature of the transition has=20
> been in a "we'll figure that out later" status.  Well, clearly I can't=20
> field too many questions with that stance.

The technical details of the transition have been defered. The bottom
line has always been that we will provide tools to allow people to levera=
ge
their investment in Zope 2.


> My challenge is getting into the first level of detail beyond the broad=
=20
> strokes outlined in the two documents you mentioned.=20

I don't think you need to. You certainly don't need to do answer the ques=
tions
above.

 > Examples:
>=20
> 1) Will Zope 3 support the Zope 2 API, or even a subset?

This has not been decided, but the likelihood is that it will.

> 2) Will Zope 2 support the Zope 3 API, or even a subset?  (This is=20
> discussed below.)

This has not been decided, but the likelihood is that it will.

> 3) If the community isn't interested in working on migration, will ZC=20
> devote the resources to complete the job?

The community and ZC are interested in working on migration.  If
the community is completely uninterested in migration, ZC will,
at least, develop the tools it needs to support maigration and
share them with the community.

> 4) During 2003, developers will have three APIs to choose from (Zope 2,=
=20
> CMF, Zope 3).  Will they know when to choose one versus the other?

They have already been given some good guidelines.  I think that the comm=
unity
could contribute by helping to package this information and make it readi=
ly
available.


> 5) Will ZC participate in the ongoing development of Zope 2 and CMF,=20
> keeping it "active" with (reasonably compelling) features until the tim=
e=20
> Zope 3 is capable of doing all that Zope 2 + CMF can do?

Yes.

> The challenge for me is in the nature of itch-scratching.  As some of=20
> these topics have come up, the reply has been "well, if somebody wants=20
> to do it or if a company pays for it, it will get done."

I'm not sure what responses you are refering to. Can you give an example?


...

> Hmm, then I completely misunderstood.  I was recalling a private=20
> exchange you and I had in December when (at least I thought) you were=20
> underwhelmed by such an idea.  I also was referencing comments made by=20
> others on the core team, in IRC and on this list.

Maybe you are refering to an idea you suggested of doing away with Zope 3
and, instead, gradually adding Zope 3 ideas to Zope 2. I'm totally
against *that* idea. I am in favor of backporting Zope 3 technologies to
Zope 2 to *facilitate the transition to Zope 3*.

> My apologies, I certainly got this wrong.  If meaningful parts of Zope =
3=20
> are introduced back into Zope 2, then we're in good shape.

It is likely that this will be the approach used.

The goal is to make transition as smooth as possible. I want to
put off deciding for sure on the technical approach until after
the beta.

BTW, I wonder if a EuroPython sprint might be a good venue to kick this
off.

Jim

--=20
Jim Fulton           mailto:[email protected]       Python Powered!
CTO                  (888) 344-4332            http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation     http://www.zope.com       http://www.zope.org