On Nov 29, 2006, at 3:01 AM, Christian Theune wrote:
Hi,
Jim Fulton wrote:
I think package-includes or something like an egg basket could be
useful for an application, like plone, that wants to support
extension
by non-developers. But for developers, I think direct zcml includes
is
Hi,
Jim Fulton wrote:
My intention, when I have time is to write a new Zope3 instance recipe
that takes a single zcml file that defines the application and that
doesn't do anything with package-includes or otherwise try to
emulate the existing site.zcml.
Ok. Many thanks for the
Christian Theune wrote:
Hi everyone,
Thomas Lotze and I were working on creating a zc.buildout for one of our
internal projects.
The ZCML of our application is loaded using the 'package-includes'
mechanism.
I think this is a bad idea. I think for serious development,
package-includes is a
Hi,
Jim Fulton wrote:
Christian Theune wrote:
Hi everyone,
Thomas Lotze and I were working on creating a zc.buildout for one of our
internal projects.
The ZCML of our application is loaded using the 'package-includes'
mechanism.
I think this is a bad idea. I think for serious
Christian Theune wrote:
Hi,
Jim Fulton wrote:
Christian Theune wrote:
Hi everyone,
Thomas Lotze and I were working on creating a zc.buildout for one of our
internal projects.
The ZCML of our application is loaded using the 'package-includes'
mechanism.
I think this is a bad idea. I think
Hi,
Jim Fulton wrote:
Christian Theune wrote:
Can we declare package-includes to be bad in general than and abandon it
please? At least tell everyone not to use it if possible?
There are more opinions than just mine. :)
I think package-includes or something like an egg basket could be
Christian Theune wrote:
...
I've been meaning to write up some thoughts on this topic for
some time. Hopefully, I'll find time for it soon. :)
I'm very happy with zc.buildout in general and look forward to start
using it much more,
Great!
but the recipes need some polish
Yup, especially
