-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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 Seaver +1 540-429-0999 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v220.127.116.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests