Paul Everitt wrote:
>
> On Dec 20, 2008, at 1:59 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
>
>> As a result of messing around with the ZCA + ZCML outside the context
>> of Zope,
>> I've found that it may be possible to significantly reduce the number
>> of egg
>> dependencies of BFG by replacing the code that allows the following ZCML
>> directives to work:
>>
>> - utility
>> - adapter
>> - interface
>> - subscriber
>>
>> As such, I'm thinking of ditching the handlers written "zope"
>> namespace for
>> these directives in favor of handler written in the "bfg" namespace.
>> So, for
>
> Interesting idea. I suppose the decorator syntax wouldn't change, but
> the machinery behind it would.
zope.configuration doesn't provide any decorator syntax, but if you mean the
ZCML syntax, yes, exactly; it wouldn't change for the "utility" or "adapter"
directives. One "fallout" change would be that instead of:
<bfg:view
for=".models.MyModel"
view=".views.my_view"
/>
The view directive would be just:
<view
for=".models.MyModel"
view=".views.my_view"
/>
(because the "bfg" XML namespace would be the default).
>
>> example, rather than doing:
>>
>> <configure xmlns="http://namespaces.zope.org/zope";>
>>
>> <utility
>> provides=".interfaces.IFoo"
>> factory=".foo.Foo"/>
>>
>> </configure>
>>
>> You would instead do:
>>
>> <configure xmlns="http://namespaces.repoze.org/bfg";>
>>
>> <utility
>> provides=".interfaces.IFoo"
>> factory=".foo.Foo"/>
>>
>> </configure>
>>
>> The down side of this is that it would mean that existing applications
>> that used
>> ZCML would need to change their ZCML, or they'd at least need to declare
>> "zope.security" as an install_requires dependency and do a manual
>> include of the
>> "zope.component" ZCML:
>>
>> <include package="zope.component" file="meta.zcml" />
>
> I think it's pretty reasonable to make that requirement in order to get
> that gain. Meaning, apps would still work with a one-line setup.py
> change and a line of ZCML.
Right.
>
>> Creating parallel "adapter", "utility" and "subscriber" handlers is
>> really how I
>> should have started things out, but I didn't, and given that there are
>> people
>> using the system in the wild that this would cause problems for in a new
>> release, I wanted to ask for comments.
>>
>> Here are the dependencies we might be able to shed by doing this:
>>
>> zope.location-3.4.0-py2.4.egg
>> zope.publisher-3.5.4-py2.4.egg
>> zope.security-3.5.2-py2.4-macosx-10.5-i386.egg
>> zope.traversing-3.5.0a4-py2.4.egg
>> zope.i18n-3.6.0-py2.4.egg
>> pytz-2008i-py2.4.egg
>>
>> My personal opinion is that doing this is "worth it" for the long
>> term. None of
>> these packages actually *do* anything for bfg apps, they're just
>> required to
>> satisfy dependencies of features we can't use.
>
> For applications that do a Zope-ish architecture (ZODB, security, etc.),
> how many of those packages would they need to pull in manually?
Security is not a feature provided by any Zope package in a BFG app; ZODB
requires whatever its setup.py says it requires.
In terms of the Zope-ish applications we (Agendaless) are developing under BFG,
no changes would need to be made to any setup.py "install_requires".
- C
_______________________________________________
Repoze-dev mailing list
Repoze-dev@lists.repoze.org
http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev
