On 2010-01-21, Hermann Himmelbauer <du...@qwer.tk> wrote: > I think such things indeed matter to some degree: It's interesting that even > people who are not that new (like Baiju or me) can't easily draw a picture of > the Zope ecosystem, for instance neither of us knew that BFG sits on ZCA and > not on ZTK, whereas I would not have distinguished between ZCA and ZTK in the > first place. > > So - if even we have problems understanding, how would things look like for > complete newbies?
+1 FWIW I think of the ZCA as: The "abstract concepts that define modern Zope programming" e.g. component, adapter, interface, view, utility, etc. which is most often compared and contrasted with "old style" Zope 2 programming, e.g. acquisition, traversal, etc. As such, I make a pretty big distinction between the ZCA and the rest, e.g. Zope 2, the ZTK, BlueBream, Grok, BFG, Plone et al. The former is a concept, the latter are implementations of that concept, to varying degrees. I don't know or particularly care what packages make up the particular products/frameworks/whatever. (In fact, I find the whole ZTK concept a bit confusing. If the ZTK is just a collection of packages why argue over which packages? Why not declare every damn "Zope-ish" package part of the ZTK? That would include Chris's BFG, which implements CA concepts. So why not? Who cares? :-) We certainly have not reached the goal of helping newcomers understand the Zope ecosystem in any other way to date, IMO.) With that in mind, I can view the ecosystem very much like: http://wiki.zope.org/bluebream/BlueBreamName. But I might draw it like this: # Zope Ecosystem # ============== # # .----------------------------------------------------------------------. # |ZCA (abstract concepts) | # | .-----------------------------------------------------. | # | |ZTK (a bunch of Zope-ish packages that may or may not | | # | | be useful to you) | | # | | --------- --------- ------- ------- | | # | | | | | | | | | | | | # | | |BlueBream| | Grok | | BFG | | Zope2 | | | # | | | | | | | | | | | | # | | --------- --------- ------- ------- | | # | | | | # | | -------------- | | # | | | repoze.zope2*| | | # | | -------------- | | # | `-----------------------------------------------------` | # | | # `----------------------------------------------------------------------` So I guess the point is, you can draw BFG with a line pointing directly to the ZCA and explicitly avoiding the ZTK, but I'm not buying it, personally ;-) Why? Because I consider BFG and whatever packages it consists of to be part of the general set of tools I may use as a Python/Zope loving web developer. And what's a good name for a set of tools that I may use to build something? Wait for it… a toolkit! Alex P.S. *Merge me back to Zope 2 Hanno, please! > Best Regards, > Hermann > -- Alex Clark · http://aclark.net Practical Plone 3 · http://tinyurl.com/practical-plone _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )