Chris McDonough just posted a capsule criticism of the Zope project and culture to zope-dev in a discussion I started. I believe Chris and I have been "violently" agreeing on most many issues in this discussion... I thought this characterization is quite interesting and I'd like to share it with the wider world. I agree with it so much and disagree so much at the same time.
Even though I disagreed with the decision to include underwear as a logo on a (now rejected) design for a new zope.org homepage, I do think it's good to sometimes focus on our dirty laundry as it can help with a cultural renewal I think the Zope community needs and is ready for.
I think this information can also be interesting for developers of other web frameworks. Look at the stuff we deal with after having been around so long! Don't let this post mislead you: I see a lot of value in Zope technology and its community otherwise I wouldn't have stuck with it for more than 10 years. Chris obviously sees value in it too, otherwise he wouldn't be arguing with me on zope-dev and extracting so many of its concepts into Repoze components.
I hope he'll forgive me for quoting him here:
I have no faith whatsoever that staying on the course we've been on for the last 9 years (large interconnected codebase, backwards compatibility at all costs, lack of any consumable documentation at a package level, not much curiosity about how other Python web frameworks work, not much real cooperation with folks that maintain other Python web frameworks, a constitutional inability to attract new users) will bring any sort of positive change.
As a background, Chris is characterizing the Zope culture in such an extreme way as it contrasts with the Repoze project he leads that tries to these things differently. The Grok project shares quite a few of these values as well, and wants to get closer.
I agree with much of this in the sense that it's a useful caricature of what's wrong with the Zope community and what needs to be improved. It's amusing that I look for ways to apply the lessons of Repoze and Grok (among others) to Zope we end up arguing so much. Chris interpreted my proposals for cultural renewal as a way to codify all things bad he describes, while my intent was more or less the opposite. I have to improve the way I express myself!
Let's go into the details:
I have no faith whatsoever that staying on the course we've been on for the last 9 years
9 years is a long time, and while I agree that some cultural deficiencies such as bad presentation of modern Zope technologies to developers and a bad installation story, have lasted a very long time without enough of an effort to fix them, other deficiencies we're aware of and we're making progress on.
large interconnected codebase,
This characterizes the current Zope 3 codebase quite well, but at the same time doesn't characterize our goals or efforts.
We had an effort in 2007 to split up our large interconnected codebase into small components. These are now the many zope.* and related areas on PyPI. Some of these are reusable independently, but far too many still pull in way too many dependencies (basically all the others), due to some seriously circular dependencies between them.
Recently I and others have spent quite a bit of time in trying to make these dependencies better, and this is part of an on-going process.
I think this is a mischaracterization therefore in the sense that is something the community knows about and is actively working on.
backwards compatibility at all costs,
I agree that we have erred on the side of too much backwards compatibility. That increased the overhead of changes tremendously and blocked innovation.
That said, I also see a lot of value of having a lot of components that can work together, and we do have a large collection of those in the Zope ecosystem. This is why Grok is so careful to stay compatible with Zope 3, so we can share that pool of components.
I'm in favor of an evolutionary approach where backwards compatibility on occasion is broken and it's clearly documented what developers should do to fix their code. We've found this worked quite well for changes in Grok. I'm also in favor of an approach where due to proper dependency factoring we can dump whole chunks of code that we aren't using (such as the Zope 3 ZMI) in a large step.
lack of any consumable documentation at a package level,
I agree that most package-level documentation could be improved tremendously by focusing on writing real documentation instead of half-test/half-documentation stuff.
That said, we also have a tremendous level of package-level documentation and interface documentation, and it's a mischaracterization of the values of the Zope project to say we haven't cared about documentation at all. We innovated with interface-level documentation and doctests, as well as making those doctests available on PyPI.
Chris has said in the past that this is a sort of "false optimum" that stops people from really fixing documentation issues, and I agree with him there that this is wrong (even though I do value doctests). We should make an effort to change our culture and redirect our documentation efforts to go beyond doctests. We've seen the adoption of Sphinx in our community in the last year, and I have good hopes we will make a lot of progress on this in the coming year.
I'll also note that documentation for the whole system has traditionally been lacking (how to get started, install it?). For this my answer is Grok. If you want to use the Zope 3 technology stack, it's by far the easiest way to get started.
not much curiosity about how other Python web frameworks work,
I'm not sure whether this characterization is accurate or not. Because Zope was there sooner than many other Python web frameworks, it's probably true we've not studied the competition as much as if we'd been there later and had more chance to compare and contrast.
I've personally been quite interested in seeing how the cultures surrounding other web frameworks work and trying to adopt lessons from this (DRY and convention over configuration for Grok, for instance, and proper documentation).
I've been able to apply the lessons I've learned from other web frameworks far better in the context of Grok than I have been in the context of the wider Zope community, and I wish that would change. In fact I'm trying to apply some lessons I've observed from Chris' efforts, Repoze, to Zope.
So, we should do more of this, indeed.
not much real cooperation with folks that maintain other Python web frameworks,
It's hard to judge this one, because what is "real cooperation"? We've tried reaching out quite a few times over the history of Zope, but I do think we can do better. Of course reaching out like this is one of the main things that Repoze is trying to do, so it's unlikely we'll be able to get up to the level of the Repoze folks any time soon.
The culture of cooperation between other Python web frameworks has started really taking off surrounding WSGI. Zope has tried to integrate with WSGI (and Twisted before then), but with moderate success in gaining community benefits from this. This means we need to try harder. I believe Grok's upcoming 1.0 release will help us a lot with the adoption of this technology, as we've been working quite hard to make sure it works out of the box.
I think we should do our best to integrate other technology in our own stuff, and we've had some progress with things like WSGI, Twisted and SQLAlchemy. Maybe Repoze is next, but I hear they think very badly of us indeed, probably because they know us so well. :)
a constitutional inability to attract new users
I share that concern very much. Part of the reason we don't attract more users is our lack of attention to documentation, proper web presentation, and our "here's a giant toolbox, it's flexible, you figure it out" approach. Grok has been one answer to this, and we've had a lot of good progress in bringing the old Zope 2 documentation up to speed as well.
It's good that the Zope technology is so central to other projects which do attract new users (Grok, Zope 2, especially through Plone) so we still have an influx of new users that way. We also get an influx of users of our individual libraries such as
zope.component, and we want to encourage that happening more.
Besides this, I'm always surprised we are able to attract new users of the Zope 3 app server directly itself as well - there are more than you'd think given our rather bad public presentation. There must be some value in it after all then! :)
I think we should recognize the position of the Zope technology as central to Zope web frameworks that do attract users. I want to call that technology the "Zope Framework". It's not something users install directly, but it's something that is used to build Grok, Zope 3 and Zope 2, that can be installed.
We need to manage the Zope Framework as such. In it, there is a tension between the concerns of the individual libraries (the parts) and the whole (the integrated set of them that's traditionally been called Zope 3, but is also used by Zope 2 and Grok). We need to think of the Zope Framework as a whole, and as parts. In order to make whole better we need to improve the parts, but in order to improve the parts we often need to think about how they fit into the whole as well.
We need to manage it so that we can resolve this tension so that we can have both good individual libraries and a better integrated experience. I'm optimistic we can resolve this tension to the betterment of the whole and the parts.
We need to look at ways to make the Zope Framework smaller, composed of more easily digestible parts, and being a whole that's easier to comprehend.
In reality we're not managing one big thing, but a tree of libraries that depend on each other, and people can approach parts of the trees as well as the whole. Breaking the tree metaphor, branches or nodes of the tree can be adopted into other trees such as repoze.bfg and Twisted. The Zope Framework, like Chris' description, is in a way a caricature of something more complex. It's a handy concept to organize a community around.
That community is the Zope community. Here's our dirty laundry. We're washing it so you can use it too. And we'll need to wash it again in the future. We're used to doing laundry. We've been at it for over a decade, and we won't be going away any time soon. Care to join us? :)
CommentsComments powered by Disqus