Hi there,

Martin Aspeli wrote:
> You and I had a discussion a while back about forking the zope.component 
> ZCML directives, and how it would've been better to work within the 
> boundaries of the Zope packages so that everyone who wanted to lose the 
> zope.security dependency could benefit, rather than fork this and all 
> other configuration that depends on the core ZCML directives. The main 
> reason you had for creating your own package, was the lack of momentum 
> (and/or stop energy) encountered when trying to do this in the Zope 
> world. If there was someone who could both consider BFG's needs in a 
> more objective light, and have the power to actually do something rather 
> than just bicker, then maybe we could've gone a different route on that 
> one. With more and more dependency untangling happening, I am pretty 
> sure this same situation is going to come up again.

Yes, this is a very good example of why Chris should be in favor of 
leadership for the Zope Framework. The Grok project would've appreciated 
such improvements right there in zope.component too.

When I brought up the issue of trying to improve zope.component 
recently, I got a lot of divergent feedback and nothing happened. It'd 
be nice if instead such energy instead resulted in a concrete set of 



Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to