Roger, what you say makes good sense. I will get agreement signed and sent and off to Jim. I am much more optimistic than I have been for a long time. This stuff has really been bothering me since I am concerned about efficient wsgi virtual host deployments and zope is unnecessarily heavy.
Personally I would like to see a core zope install with a footprint of no more that 20MB with just essential packages. I am a believer in zope and I am encouraged by the support for change. I also realize some of this will be disruptive but it is necessary. A wiki page will be helpful to communicate and get the best ideas for moving ahead. There are a number of good folks here that understand the circumstances so we have an excellent opportunity to act on this. On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 9:09 PM, Roger Ineichen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi David > >> Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] Dependencies and future of zope 3 >> >> Hey Roger. Sounds reasonable to me. Can we also discuss the >> potential of only including testing setup for dev eggs and >> removing testing as part of a release when the eggs are >> packaged to pypi or other repository for consumption. > > I guess we do not have tets eggs. What do you mean with > test eggs. > > I think extras_require test is a pattern which let's you > use the extras or not if you use an egg. By default > an egg has only dependencies the defined packages > in install_requires. Or are I'm wrong? > >> Besides loosing the dependency, this makes for happier folks >> external to zope that consume our eggs. >> >> While I personally do not like the contributor agreement, I >> am willing to sign to help out to work with you and others to >> get this settled. I am busy just like anyone else, but this >> stuff with the dependencies has to end now. Weve been with >> eggs for more than a couple years, progress has been made but >> it has been slow. Seriously, let's see what we can do to. > > Cool any help is welcome. > >> The browser packages are a good place to start. Testing >> another. Third would be seriously examining dependencies of >> core again once this is done. Fourth might be tackling some >> of the zope.xxx zope.app.xxx relationships. Some of the stale >> packages in the main repository and placing them at another >> location if they are unmaintained might also be in order. > > I think we should start with identify the hard core dependencies > and list them in a proposal or another document in the zope wiki. > Anybody can list their ideas of what should be done and list > ideas how we can solve the problems. We also can use that > paper for vote about the different refactorings. > > Such a proposal/paper could also be usefull for others which > don't read each mail. > > We have different kind of refactorings which all solve some > problems. I think we should not start with the browser views. > There are some core dependencies we need to cleanup first. > > Right now I'm working forward with small refactorings > which solve some dependencies to zope.app.form (ITerms) and > zope.app.authentication (IPaswordManager). > > After that, my goal is to work on the testing framework, > offering a clean testing (skin) layer, which should make it > possible to write functional tests without to use the basic, > default or rotterdam skin and the zope.app.authentication > package. > > I guess that's what the repoze people need to have too. > > Your help is defently very welcome. Go ahead with the > contributor agreement sing up and let Jim know that > I volunteer for you. > > >> If we want to folks to use zope we need to be friendly to >> wsgi with or without a zodb and show both sides of the coin - >> that CA + choice of backend + zope security + choice of >> traversal method (with publisher) == interesting, productive, >> mature, dynamic and efficient. > > Sounds interesting but let's put that on the todo later list. > > Regards > Roger Ineichen > _____________________________ > END OF MESSAGE > >> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Roger Ineichen >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Hi >> > >> >> Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] Dependencies and future of zope 3 >> >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Stephan Richter >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > For several packages we took the following approach. >> Most packages >> >> > that have browser packages are in zope.app; for example, >> >> > zope.app.folder (we did not convert this package yet). We >> >> then took the API and moved it to zope.folder. >> >> >> >> Maybe we should create a new namespace package for "browser" code. >> >> >> >> How about "zope.browser"? >> > >> > Most packages which are interesting for reuse provide more or less >> > only ZMI related views. >> > >> > What about zope.zmi if they provide views for the ZMI. This >> views are >> > allmost unuseable outside the ZMI (know as Rotterdam skin) >> > >> > Regards >> > Roger Ineichen >> > >> >> -- >> >> Benji York >> >> Senior Software Engineer >> >> 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 ) >> >> >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 ) >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ 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 )