-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> 
>> All those who think this is somehow impure and dirty, keep in mind  
>> that this arrangement won't be forever, only for the 2.1 branch.  
>> Afterwards there's more time to plan on packaging things differently.
> 
> The only thing that worries me is that if we artificially inject it into 
> Products.* and then want to move it, we'll have module aliases to 
> contend with.

Shouldn't need them, unless we are somehow createing persistent objects
from that package / product.  I thought all that stuff happened at
runtime, with no persistence?

> I guess *something* has to import it, so that may be unavoidable.
> 
> It does feel fairly awkward to write something that is essentially a 
> Zope 3 module in a "non-package" way.

I'm not convinced that anything which is this tightly coupled to Zope
needs to be a package, rather than a product.  I don't think the
"package zealots" get the fact that purity is not a win if we have to
distort the rest of the application to satisfy it.


Tres.
- --
===================================================================
Tres Seaver          +1 540-429-0999          [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Palladion Software   "Excellence by Design"    http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFy7T8+gerLs4ltQ4RAkL+AJ455dCKsXy7Mg42T1uVlYu2CuHjeQCg26Dq
HHeN6G0Lv8w9MR6knBx2l3k=
=A35o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests

Reply via email to