Tres Seaver wrote:

>> which may not
>> be available either after the dependency on
>> has been lifted.
> Hmm, I guess I hadn't realized that the interface was in the
> 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, could register its own code to handle the "process"
and "applicationControl" names.


Zope-Dev maillist  -
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to