Martijn Faassen wrote:
> We've recently had some discussions on where to place the implementation 
> of various ZCML directives. This post is to try to summarize the issue 
> and analyze the options we have.

Thanks for summarizing this!

> We have several ways to go:
> a) continue with the current extra dependencies situation like in 
> zope.component, and in fact clean up other packages that define ZCML to 
> declare ZCML extra dependencies.

-1 from me. I see the test extra as a necessary evil to get us moving
with the lessened-dependency project. Multiple extras will just cause an
increasing number of combinations of packages which aren't tested
anymore. If you have a extra in your package, it should be possible to
move the added functionality from the extra into a package that depends
on the original package.

> b) pull out all ZCML implementations from where they are now and put 
> them in special ZCML implementation packages. We could for instance have 
> zcml.component, or zope.component_zcml, or zope.configuration.component. 
> We had a bit of a side-tracked discussion about naming and namespace 
> packages here.
> c) pull out only those ZCML implementations that cause extra 
> dependencies beyond zope.configuration. So, we extract the bits of 
> zope.component into a new package, but we don't extract bits from 

+0 Seems reasonable to me.


Zope-Dev maillist  -
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to