Paul Everitt wrote:
>> zope.configuration doesn't provide any decorator syntax, but if you
>> mean the
> Sorry, I meant repoze.bfg.convention. I believe that, under the hood,
> it's doing the same configuration work as ZCML.
It is but it's a separate issue. We could choose to make parallel
utility/subscriber/adapter/interface decorators if we wanted (ala grokcore), but
it'd be a feature unrelated to this change.
>>> 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".
> Right, I meant the latter. For people that are writing BFG applications
> that smell like Zope (e.g. KARL), how many of those packages would still
> be used, thus lessening the "win" in that case?
None of those are used by our apps.
Repoze-dev mailing list