Re: Zope3 name

On Friday, Feb 14, 2003, at 13:33 Europe/Paris, Jim Fulton wrote:

>> 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.

Good.

>> 2) Will Zope 2 support the Zope 3 API, or even a subset?  (This is 
>> discussed below.)
>
> This has not been decided, but the likelihood is that it will.

Good.  On both of these points, please transmit the message to others 
in the zope 3 project. :^)

>> 3) If the community isn't interested in working on migration, will ZC 
>> 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, 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 
> community
> could contribute by helping to package this information and make it 
> readily
> available.
>
>
>> 5) Will ZC participate in the ongoing development of Zope 2 and CMF, 
>> keeping it "active" with (reasonably compelling) features until the 
>> time 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 
>> these topics have come up, the reply has been "well, if somebody 
>> wants 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?

Reply sent offline.

> Paul wrote: Hmm, then I completely misunderstood.  I was recalling a 
> private exchange you and I had in December when (at least I thought) 
> you were underwhelmed by such an idea.  I also was referencing 
> comments made by 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*.

Ok, I think your recollection is right.

>> My apologies, I certainly got this wrong.  If meaningful parts of 
>> Zope 3 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.

I think it's a good chance to get a feedback loop from several 
audiences:

1) Python developers that haven't been attracted to Zope.  I think one 
of Zope 3's central tenets is to make development feel more Pythonic 
for this crowd?  We could use EPC2003 to verify the theory.

2) People the run Zope businesses.  We could find out their feelings on 
what has them excited and what, if anything, has them worried.

We don't have either of these groups in the feedback loop too much 
right now, so it's a good opportunity to do some active listening.

--Paul