Previously Martijn Faassen wrote:
> 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.
I'ld rather not see a whole slew of extra packagse appear. I also wonder
how the extra number of packages and increasing size of sys.path
influence performance and restrictions on environments like GAE.
> 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.
It solves the problem in a consistent way
> 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
This introduces inconsistencies that might be confusing.
Wichert Akkerman <wich...@wiggy.net> It is simple to make things.
http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple.
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -