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.

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