Previously Martin Aspeli wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
That package is now done...
http://static.repoze.org/zcmldocs
and
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/repoze.zcml/0.1
I've adjusted the trunk of bfg and the trunk of chameleon.zpt to use ZCML
declaration implementations from
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Martin Aspeli wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
That package is now done...
http://static.repoze.org/zcmldocs
and
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/repoze.zcml/0.1
I've adjusted the trunk of bfg and the trunk of chameleon.zpt to use ZCML
declaration
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Paul Everitt wrote:
That seems like a false leap.
I freely admit to using hyperbole in my original email to draw out a
debate. :-)
It does bother me a little, though, that the fix seems to be to
fork/re-implement rather than to try and push something downstream.
On Dec 21, 2008, at 9:31 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
But one thing won't happen: bfg is not going to live
with four inappropriate dependencies forever to service a goal of
fidelity.
Repoze is the place where we co-habitate with the goals of other
projects, such as Zope and Plone. BFG,
On Dec 21, 2008, at 11:36 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Paul Everitt wrote:
That seems like a false leap.
I freely admit to using hyperbole in my original email to draw out a
debate. :-)
It does bother me a little, though, that the fix seems to be to
fork/re-implement rather than to try and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris McDonough wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
Maybe there's some potential to create a set of core ZCML registration
handlers
for utility, adapter, subscriber, and interace that are not actually part of
BFG, but on
