On Sep 3, 2008, at 3:57 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote: >> I guess the simple solution is well it you don't like it, use the >> another framework. Its not quite that simple since I am extremely >> fond >> of the CA architecture and have a strong desire to continue with it >> in >> some form or another into the future. I think what I am sensing more >> than anything is a need for zope to adapt a changing reality. > > zope.component, at least, is one of the packages that *does* work > without "the world". :)
Only partially and only because I did something I really didn't want to do, which was to employ extras. ... >> I believe much of what is being accomplished in >> bfg could be accomplished in zope if it were tighter and we could >> focus >> on a leaner core of packages void of the large number of >> dependencies. > > Reducing unneeded dependencies would indeed be a good architectural > goal. However, I'm not sure that having a few extra packages today is > stopping people from getting things done. I think there is a distaste for having lots of extra packages around. This isn't very important to me, but it really bugs some folks. Jim -- Jim Fulton Zope Corporation _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )