Martijn Faassen wrote at 2007-10-24 18:38 +0200:
> ...
>I
>disagree with the position that should not ever treat an adapter
>registration as an implementation detail to provide some default
>behavior. Sometimes the behavior of a library *relies* on certain
>adapters being registered. An example is
On 10/25/07, Chris McDonough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I can definitely see a use in the zope3 and grok world for some more
> > ZODB persistent configuration. Maybe much of what is today actually
> > done in ZCML shuld rather be done there?
>
> Does it need to be persistent or just placeful?
On Oct 24, 2007, at 12:54 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 10/24/07, Tres Seaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Maybe we need to add a term, 'plugin', to describe things like Zope2
products which register only "behavior" and not "addable
applications."
The line gets fuzzy here, too: PAS uses 'plu
On 10/24/07, Tres Seaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe we need to add a term, 'plugin', to describe things like Zope2
> products which register only "behavior" and not "addable applications."
> The line gets fuzzy here, too: PAS uses 'plugin' to describe an object
> which is added to a persi
Hello,
On 10/24/07, Chris McDonough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> I think maybe more abstractly, it might be useful to think about
> separating based on libraries vs. applications. Libraries should be
> as policy-free as possible (otherwise they're not libraries, they're
> applications). A
On Oct 22, 2007, at 11:46 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 10/22/07, Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In at least 3 places we express dependency information. For different
*purposes* in each case, but we still state something like:
1. "we use dependency X, and please download and instal
