Re: [Zope-dev] ZCML implementations: where should they go

2009-02-10 Thread Dieter Maurer
Hanno Schlichting wrote at 2009-2-8 14:14 +0100: Wichert Akkerman wrote: I'ld rather not see a whole slew of extra packagse appear. I also wonder how the extra number of packages and increasing size of sys.path influence performance and restrictions on environments like GAE. For environments

Re: [Zope-dev] ZCML implementations: where should they go

2009-02-10 Thread Shane Hathaway
Hanno Schlichting wrote: Wichert Akkerman wrote: I'ld rather not see a whole slew of extra packagse appear. I also wonder how the extra number of packages and increasing size of sys.path influence performance and restrictions on environments like GAE. For environments like GAE you don't

Re: [Zope-dev] ZCML implementations: where should they go

2009-02-10 Thread Dieter Maurer
Jim Fulton wrote at 2009-2-8 13:00 -0500: ... IMO, introducing an extra is like introducing a new package and in a rather complicated way. I agree with the first part of your sentence -- but cannot follow you with the second part: How can 'extra' : sequence of required distributions be

Re: [Zope-dev] ZCML implementations: where should they go

2009-02-10 Thread Jim Fulton
On Feb 10, 2009, at 1:49 PM, Dieter Maurer wrote: Jim Fulton wrote at 2009-2-8 13:00 -0500: ... IMO, introducing an extra is like introducing a new package and in a rather complicated way. I agree with the first part of your sentence -- but cannot follow you with the second part: How

Re: [Zope-dev] ZCML implementations: where should they go

2009-02-10 Thread Martijn Faassen
Hey, So the general idea would be to remove the complication extras introduce in reasoning about packages. Extras can be removed in two ways: * carefully restructure dependency relationships between packages so that extras are no longer needed (typically for test extras this can be done) *

Re: [Zope-dev] ZCML implementations: where should they go

2009-02-10 Thread Dieter Maurer
Jim Fulton wrote at 2009-2-10 14:01 -0500: On Feb 10, 2009, at 1:49 PM, Dieter Maurer wrote: Jim Fulton wrote at 2009-2-8 13:00 -0500: ... IMO, introducing an extra is like introducing a new package and in a rather complicated way. I agree with the first part of your sentence -- but cannot

Re: [Zope-dev] ZCML implementations: where should they go

2009-02-09 Thread Tres Seaver
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Martijn Faassen wrote: Hanno Schlichting wrote: [snip] Anything you'd actually be +1 on? :) I haven't figured out yet, what I'd like to do with ZCML and zope.configuration in general. It seems to me that ZCML is right now too tightly bound to

Re: [Zope-dev] ZCML implementations: where should they go

2009-02-09 Thread Martijn Faassen
Hey, Tres Seaver wrote: [snip] repoze.bfg takes yet another approach. I'm sure there are new ZCML directives it introduces, but it also forked the current ZCML directives that are in zope.component for basic component registration, to reduce its dependencies. Perhaps that fork can be

Re: [Zope-dev] ZCML implementations: where should they go

2009-02-09 Thread Adam GROSZER
Hello, Monday, February 9, 2009, 5:58:34 PM, you wrote: The fork is not merely to reduce dependencies: BFG also wants to eliminate the requirement that there be one global component registry to rule them all, which is pretty deeply embedded in zope.component. Breaking that assumption allows

Re: [Zope-dev] ZCML implementations: where should they go

2009-02-08 Thread Wichert Akkerman
Previously Martijn Faassen wrote: We have several ways to go: a) continue with the current extra dependencies situation like in zope.component, and in fact clean up other packages that define ZCML to declare ZCML extra dependencies. +1 I'ld rather not see a whole slew of extra packagse

Re: [Zope-dev] ZCML implementations: where should they go

2009-02-08 Thread Dan Korostelev
2009/2/8 Dieter Maurer die...@handshake.de: Each individual extra :extra is equivalent to a separate package _extra depending on (and potentially many other things). The extras are just a convenient way to avoid cluttering the distribution namespace. That said, I like a). +1

Re: [Zope-dev] ZCML implementations: where should they go

2009-02-08 Thread Hanno Schlichting
Wichert Akkerman wrote: I'ld rather not see a whole slew of extra packagse appear. I also wonder how the extra number of packages and increasing size of sys.path influence performance and restrictions on environments like GAE. For environments like GAE you don't want setuptools and its magic

Re: [Zope-dev] ZCML implementations: where should they go

2009-02-08 Thread Hanno Schlichting
Martijn Faassen wrote: Hanno Schlichting wrote: Martijn Faassen wrote: [snip] a) continue with the current extra dependencies situation like in zope.component, and in fact clean up other packages that define ZCML to declare ZCML extra dependencies. -1 from me. [snip motivation I agree

Re: [Zope-dev] ZCML implementations: where should they go

2009-02-08 Thread Jim Fulton
On Feb 7, 2009, at 11:07 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote: Hi there, We've recently had some discussions on where to place the implementation of various ZCML directives. This post is to try to summarize the issue and analyze the options we have. Right now ZCML directives are implemented in

Re: [Zope-dev] ZCML implementations: where should they go

2009-02-08 Thread Martijn Faassen
Hanno Schlichting wrote: [snip] Anything you'd actually be +1 on? :) I haven't figured out yet, what I'd like to do with ZCML and zope.configuration in general. It seems to me that ZCML is right now too tightly bound to application configuration. Zope2 and Five need different action

Re: [Zope-dev] ZCML implementations: where should they go

2009-02-08 Thread Martijn Faassen
Martin Aspeli wrote: [snip] I see no problem with starting with zope.component, but I'd consider both naming conventions and package structure conventions in a wider context before making the leap with zope.component, to reduce the chance of inconsistencies in the future. We already had a

Re: [Zope-dev] ZCML implementations: where should they go

2009-02-08 Thread Hanno Schlichting
Martijn Faassen wrote: Hanno Schlichting wrote: [snip] Anything you'd actually be +1 on? :) I haven't figured out yet, what I'd like to do with ZCML and zope.configuration in general. It seems to me that ZCML is right now too tightly bound to application configuration. Zope2 and Five need

Re: [Zope-dev] ZCML implementations: where should they go

2009-02-07 Thread Hanno Schlichting
Martijn Faassen wrote: We've recently had some discussions on where to place the implementation of various ZCML directives. This post is to try to summarize the issue and analyze the options we have. Thanks for summarizing this! We have several ways to go: a) continue with the current

Re: [Zope-dev] ZCML implementations: where should they go

2009-02-07 Thread Martijn Faassen
Hey Hanno, Thanks for your feedback! Hanno Schlichting wrote: Martijn Faassen wrote: [snip] a) continue with the current extra dependencies situation like in zope.component, and in fact clean up other packages that define ZCML to declare ZCML extra dependencies. -1 from me. [snip

Re: [Zope-dev] ZCML implementations: where should they go

2009-02-07 Thread Martin Aspeli
Hi Martijn, Without comparison otherwise, you may find my thoughts here useful: http://www.martinaspeli.net/articles/granting-plone-an-api a) continue with the current extra dependencies situation like in zope.component, and in fact clean up other packages that define ZCML to declare ZCML