Tres Seaver wrote:
> It probably could be (in fact, I prototyped it there first). However,
> it turns out that zope.hookable has effectively *no* clients beyond
> zope.component, which meant that I could lose the 'install_requires'
> dependency altogether by moving the pure-Python bits to zope.component.
My thought is that if we treat zope.hookable as a library that stands on
its own, which I believe is a principle we should follow, we should do
what Dan suggests and move it into zope.hookable.
But your discovery that zope.hookable isn't used anywhere else is an
interesting one, so we need to weigh that against the opportunity to get
rid of a separate library people need to understand.
I think we can only make the correct determination if we get an idea of
the performance implications. If it turns out the C code brings
significant speedups in real-world applications, we should create a
zope.hookable with a Python + C implementation. If not, we should get
rid of zope.hookable altogether.
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -