-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Thomas Lotze wrote:
> 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.
I think that sounds like the right plan: zope.traversing then has no
inappropriate dependencies, and the application controller package can
just register named global utilities (or named adapters, if that fits
better), for the generic interface.
Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -