Martijn Faassen wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Jim Fulton <j...@zope.com> wrote:
>> 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:
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:
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.
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -