2009/2/6 Chris Withers <ch...@simplistix.co.uk>:
> Dieter Maurer wrote:
>> Chris Withers wrote at 2009-1-30 18:50 +0000:
>>> Brian Sutherland wrote:
>>>> Please don't, having namespace packages that contain files (as
>>>> zope.configuration already does) breaks setuptools.
>>> Then setuptools needs fixing.
>> But not for this purpose:
>> I would find is very unintuitive when configuration were centralized
>> (in subpackages of "zope.configuration") rather than modular.
>> Configuration belongs to the application or framework component
>> that depends on this configuration not to any central component.
> I would normally agree, but this isn't quite as simple as that.
> ZCML cuts across packages in that, if you use ZCML, you want the
> directives for all the packages you have installed.
> If you don't use ZCML, you don't want any of the directives.
> using --> to mean depends on, what we want is:
> zcmlforpackagez --> packagex
> ...which frees up packagex to be used without any ZCML
> So, we end up with lots of "zcmlforpackage"'s which need to go somewhere.
> Either zope.configuration.packagex or packagex.zcml as package names for
> these seems sensible, but if setuptools doesn't support either, then it
> needs fixing...
Why not just define an extra requirement for zcml in the main package
and not generate thousands of packages that contain only meta
WBR, Dan Korostelev
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -