Wichert Akkerman wrote: > On 3/20/10 15:33 , Derek Broughton wrote: >> >> Thanks for this discussion - I'm loathe to even test Plone4 at the moment >> because I don't know enough about this sort of change. >> >> Surely, though, dependencies on something like CMFCore should be >> fulfilled by declaring the dependency on Plone. > > They are, but you should never rely on that: Plone might be modified to > not use CMFCore anymore itself, and your package would suddenly break. > For Plone and CMFCore that is not very likely short term, but in general > you should never rely on indirect dependencies. They *will* hurt you at > some point.
Ah, but I rather look at it the opposite way - I _should_ rely on indirect dependencies for something like CMFCore, because I only use it as required in Plone. If plone was to drop that dependency and use something else (specifically this _did_ happen with CMFCore Permissions - at least the module moved), I _want_ my product to break and require me to fix my code. The absolutely last thing I want is for my code to continue to import something that will only be used by my own products while everybody else is doing something different. -- derek _______________________________________________ Product-Developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/product-developers
