On 3/4/09 8:16 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Paul Everitt wrote:
>> When I read Martin's post, I had a similar reaction. Namely, that the
>> convenience of the Uberthing (Plone in this case) will always trump the
>> desire of packages trying to survive on their own for new audiences. At
>> the time of the configuration scolding, I remember thinking: there's
>> little interest here in Chameleon's goal to be bigger than Zope. "Keep
>> things convenient for us in Plone!"
> In this case, you totally misread my post. It broke for all users of
> zope.component, and I never, once, made the argument that Chameleon was
> part of Plone or should be driven purely by Plone's needs. I have no
> such pretentions, nor does anyone else I know, about this, or zope.* or
> the CMF package or, well, anything that is not expressly part of Plone.
Chameleon provided something that made it work for those users, while
allowing it to not be burdened by those needs. Everybody wins.
Hopefully such solutions will be the norm in the future.
> That particular discussion is over, though, and I have no interest in
> having it again.
These two paragraphs seem contradictory. [wink] We'll consider the
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -