Hash: SHA1

Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> On Dec 29, 2007, at 18:28 , Hanno Schlichting wrote:
>> What's the status of moving all the other parts into separate  
>> projects /
>> folders?
>> FWIW there hasn't been a final vote on the one-meta-egg vs. individual
>> eggs question.
>> For the small number of CMF parts I'm +1 for individual eggs.
> Yes, this is an open question. Products.CMFCore has been prepared so  
> it could be published as its own egg. But there hasn't been a decision  
> whether to set up individual eggs for each CMF package or just one big  
> egg or a combination of the two solutions.
> I like your argument where we could use this as an opportunity to move  
> packages like CMFUid out of the bundle/egg/tarball/whatever that  
> people get when they get the CMF. I wouldn't mind having a division  
> where you have...
>   - CMFCore (the foundation which may be used by itself to develop  
> other kinds of portal software)
>   - CMFDefault + DCWorkflow + (maybe) CMFTopic (a "finished" sample  
> for a CMFCore-based portal software bundle)
>   - CMFUid (optional add-on)
>   - CMFCalendar (optional add-on)
>   - CMFActionIcons (optional add-on)

If we go ahead and break each product out into its own egg, we can
create one or more "meta eggs" which stitch them back together.  E.g.,
the meta egg could have:

  extras_require={'uid': ['Products.CMFUid'],
                  'calendar': ['Products.CMFCalendar'],
                  'actionicons': ['Products.CMFActionIcons'],
                  'kitchensink': ['Products.CMFUid',

People who want the traditional "all-in-one" could then depend on or
easy_install 'CMF[kitchensink]'.

- --
Tres Seaver          +1 540-429-0999          [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Palladion Software   "Excellence by Design"    http://palladion.com
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org

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

Reply via email to