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 Fulton
Zope Corporation

Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to