On 4/27/09 1:28 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Chris McDonough wrote:
>
>> But anyway, yeah. For someone who has never used zope.component, though,
>> it's
>> really not that important ("more strictly" compares to zope.component).
>
> Reading that page as someone who does use zope.component, I was also not
> entirely convinced of the rationale for this package. I'm not saying
> there isn't one (though it smells a bit unfortunate that we're inventing
> a plugin system that's almost the same as zope.component, yet
> incompatible), but the aforementioned documentation didn't explain it
> sufficiently IMHO.
There's no *good* reason. The only reasons are bad. The primary driver is
that
we're trying to work with the Pylons community to share implementation bits. I
suggested that they might use something like zope.configuration to do system
configuration. But it turns out that some in that community are completely
befuddled by zope.component and those in that community who are not befuddled
by
it are actively hostile to it. They may still be befuddled by and hostile to
something that is simpler, but at least we'll have something to argue about on
technical grounds rather than emotion.
- C
_______________________________________________
Repoze-dev mailing list
Repoze-dev@lists.repoze.org
http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev
