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: >>>>> zope.configuration.x >>>>> zope.configuration.y >>>> 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: > > zope.configuration > ^ > | > 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 directives? -- WBR, Dan Korostelev _______________________________________________ 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 )