> Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] zope.password
> On Tuesday 10 March 2009, Dan Korostelev wrote:
> > > Either you have a dependency and declare it or you don't have a
> > > dependency. Since we don't want to use "extras" anymore, I think
> > > this calls for another package which depends on
> zope.password and zope.schema.
> > I still don't like/get the idea of creating and maintaining extra
> > package that merely contains a vocabulary factory for
> another package.
> > Whatever, I reverted that change. Roger, just exclude
> > zope.app.authentication's "password.zcml" file, include
> > "zope.password" explicitly and define your own vocabulary.
> I think we have become dependency paranoid. And we embrace
> package proliferation instead, which in my opinion is equally
> bad. If you really hate the dependency, make it an extra
> requires. I know that goes against the
> latest guidelines as well...*sigh*
> My big problem here is that we dismiss all solutions but new
> packages. We want to minimize dependencies and not have extra
> includes. The only choice left is a separate package. We
> should, however try to make the number of packages a parameter too.
This is exactly my reaction. It is allways bad to skip existing
patterns without to have a better one.
Note, there is always a reason for a pattern. We didn't just
develop that for fun. I think the steering group should think
about what are the consequence if we skip someting and how
we can solve the problems which get solved based on patterns
they like to skip.
Right now it means, skip extra_requires forces us to add more
new package and include them in the original package for BBB
reason which will add back the same dependency like we tried
to skip with extra_requires. But now as a hard depenency. ouch!
> Stephan Richter
> Web Software Design, Development and Training Google me.
> "Zope Stephan Richter"
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -