On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 17:27 +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hi there,
> Stephan Richter wrote:
> [snip]
> >> In my opinion going for an extra here just to avoid this is speculating
> >> a bit too much right now. Do we really have users that want to use
> >> zope.password and really don't want zope.component and zope.schema? If
> >> so, we'll hear from them when they speak up and *then* declare an extra
> >> or take some other action.
> > 
> > +1. I want more of our decisions to go into this direction. It is a sign 
> > that 
> > we turn the # of packages knob as well.
> I agree with you in the case against extras.
> It appears though that Dan has a concrete use case for using 
> zope.password in a Pylons app where he isn't interested in 
> zope.component, so I'm +1 on the extra in this case. We'll see whether 
> this leads to difficulties. Luckily the zope.component and zope.schema 
> libraries are typically around anyway so it doesn't make reasoning about 
> the graph that much harder.

I remember that at the sprint we used to identify packages which are
"always good". E.g. zope.interface is a declared no-brainer to add to
your dependencies. The other two that keep popping up that we *might*
wanna white-list are zope.schema and zope.component.

In addition this would need documentation as well.


Christian Theune · c...@gocept.com
gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany
http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 7 · fax +49 345 1229889 1
Zope and Plone consulting and development

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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