Roger Ineichen wrote:
[snip]
But I also see another point of view. Zope 3 as a product we
can lobby for and a application server which is ready to use
with a easy setup. e.g. windows installer or buildout,
easy install.
I think such a Zope 3 application server has the following
benefit.
- easy to install and ready to use for newbees or small projects
- a proof that we are able to setup such a working server
- a working setup which 3rd party developer can develop with
- a product which the sales can show and lobby for
But who will do this?
I know who, I know who! :)
Probably we need a own community which picks up this
task and supports a Zope application server built
with cool zope components out there.
And we have such a community: Grok!
See grok.zope.org and grok-dev for the community that is doing what you
describe for the last year or so.
This is *exactly* what is Grok is about. I'm not kidding. We don't call
it Zope 3. We call it "Grok" or "Zope Grok". We build on the giant that
is Zope 3. This way we avoid the confusion on whether Zope 3 is a set of
libraries or a web framework you can install and try out. Grok's the latter.
I can imagine you don't agree with some of the choices we made with
Grok. I'd be happy to see other communities that try to do the same
thing. It'll only benefit the underlying technology of Grok, after all.
One outcome of this discussion might be that we all indeed agree with
the naming choice we made with Grok: we don't want to call such a web
application framework "Zope 3", but something else, to separate the
concerns.
Regards,
Martijn
_______________________________________________
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
