Tres Seaver wrote:
>> zope.app.applicationcontrol.interfaces.IApplicationControl which may not
>> be available either after the dependency on zope.app.applicationcontrol
>> has been lifted.
> Hmm, I guess I hadn't realized that the interface was in the zope.app
> package. Shouldn't the interface be in a more "dependable" package, from
> which clients can import it without depending on a given implementation?
> One logical place for the interface is actually in zope.traversing: that
> would break the dependency inversion.
OTOH I don't think that the concept of the application controller should
be mentioned in zope.traversing which is about something else entirely. I
do think that this sounds like the perfect reason to introduce that
registry: Some interface IEtcTraverser or similiar might be introduced
against which named subscription adapters might be registered. Then,
zope.app.application could register its own code to handle the "process"
and "applicationControl" names.
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -