Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Jim Fulton <j...@zope.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>> The graph only shows direct dependencies on zope.i18n and zope.security, but
>> there are many other direct dependencies.
> 
> Ah, agreed, yes, I think this is because of the transitive dependency
> functionality removal somehow, even though it seems to remove more
> than just these. Hanno's now also generating the real graphs, though:
> 
> http://hannosch.eu/dependencies/zope/zope.publisher-full.svg

I see in that graph a number of dependencies that are pulled in just for 
specifications.  For instance, zope.publisher doesn't really need the 
Location class, it only needs ILocation.

Just brainstorming, but I wonder if we shouldn't split at least the 
following packages into specification and implementation packages:

   - zope.location
   - zope.security
   - zope.i18n
   - zope.publisher
   - zope.component

That way various packages could use i18n interfaces without pulling in 
pytz, or could use location interfaces without pulling in zope.proxy, 
and so on.

Brainstorming deeper: we could apply a naming convention where the 
specification package is named with the suffix "spec", so zope.location 
would be split into zope.location and zope.locationspec.

Shane

_______________________________________________
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