On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 09:43:03 -0330, Rocky Burt wrote: > On Tue, 2006-28-02 at 13:21 +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote: >> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: >> [snip] >> > I would vote for spelling out Zed (which would also be a little easier >> > to google but might create trademark problems). The namespace package >> > could either be 'z' or 'zed'. >> > >> > Then again, I really should take Jim's side and stay out of naming >> > decisions. >> >> Let's please not have a naming discussion again. I think renaming Zope 3 >> is really bad marketing myself and naming discussions mostly a waste of >> time... > > As I sit here spending sooo much time reading this thread
yes, it's a big'un alright... > 1) The Zope 3 name and brand is a marketing disaster (from my perspective) > -- to be honest there's really no way I could see this actually getting > worse by coming up with a new name. How many times in the #plone channel > do we get asked, "Does Plone run on Zope 3.1/3.2?" or, "When will Plone > run on Zope 3.2" to which we say "no" to the first question and "dunno" to > the second question. +100. it's a confusing mess to anyone who isn't spending as much time as we all are reading this stuff every day. come to think of it, it's a confusing mess to us, too. > If we started treating zope 3 as just a framework and put energies back > into maintaing/refactoring/beautifying zope2 as an application server that > uses that framework at its core (this is essentially what zope 2.8+ is > working towards with Five IMHO) then this could help several ways: > 1) we stop spending time reproducing zope2 app server functionality in > zope3 > 2) we stop building more into zope2 as a framework (i think this is > pretty much already happening) i agree with this sentiment, although i do recognize that there are folks who are currently using zope3 as an app-server, and who (understandably) don't want to have anything to do w/ anything zope2 related, ever again. > Anyway, this still keeps things very confusing from a naming perspective > (mostly for new adopters). So .... having said all of that, I am actually > +1 on Jim's proposal #2. What I see from that (someone correct me if I'm > wrong) is the following: > > 1) rename zope 3 the framework as Z or zopelib or Zed or something > sensical that doesn't confuse the early adopter's conquest of trying to > figure out which zope to start with > 2) Make zope 2 the application server acquire the name "zope" once > again and be the only app server. This could only work (from a new > adopter's perspective) if either the application server is given a new > name or given a version number higher than 3. i support this idea as well, but i think we have to recognize that there will be some parallel app-server-ness happening for a while, until z2 becomes so thin that we have achieved complete convergence btn the z2/five-based and the z3-based app server platforms that are already being used. -r _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org 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 )
