2008/9/16 Roger Ineichen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Are you thinking about a basic UI interface package. > where we probably define some interfaces e.g. > IBrowserPage and friends and nothing else?
It really depends on how much we want to play with frameworks like repoze.bfg that do not want complete buy-in. > This whould offer a good base for any other UI > framework to provide the right interfaces for > their implementation. Interfaces like IContentProvider > could depend on such an interface too. And the ITerms > interface could also become a part of this package rather > then move to a zope.term package which we already agreed on. In Zope, there's a default implementation for most interfaces and this makes it easy to get started. The downside is that often times those implementation have a bunch of dependencies. But I don't think there's a way out of that. That's why I think we should simply try to get rid of zope.app.*-dependencies for starters and also try to move commonly used components/interfaces to base packages. \malthe _______________________________________________ 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 )