Martin Aspeli wrote:
[snip]
> I see no problem with starting with zope.component, but I'd consider 
> both naming conventions and package structure conventions in a wider 
> context before making the leap with zope.component, to reduce the chance 
> of inconsistencies in the future.

We already had a rather fruitless naming discussion, which is why I'm 
still in favor of option c) (avoiding the creation of new packages where 
possible). Option b) risks us creating a lot more small packages that 
we'll have to manage, and ultimately I'd like to *reduce* the amount of 
packages in the Zope framework. And as I already said, I like small steps.

I think we should adhere to the principle that a package should have the 
code and dependencies to run its tests, with typically no test extras 
needed therefore, and no dependencies just to support testing.

I think we should also have the principle that code to configure a 
concepts introduced by a package (such as component configuration, 
security configuration) should be in that package, if at least this 
doesn't expand dependency requirements.

I saw that this principle seemed to work fairly well when we moved ZCML 
directives out of both zope.app.security and zope.app.component into 
zope.security: these directives were mostly (though not entirely) about 
security anyway, and the move didn't introduce new dependencies.

Regards,

Martijn

_______________________________________________
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 )

Reply via email to