Yusei TAHARA wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:10:44 +0200
> Martijn Faassen <faas...@startifact.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Then I'll take this way for now. Maybe z3c.zmi.core would be good?
>> Flat is better than nested (see the Zen of Python). I'd say go for 
>> "zmi.core"; z3c isn't necessary.
> 
> Thanks. I will use the name "zmi.core" and will commit initial draft
> this weekend.

That's great to hear!

If you want to move code from existing zope.app.* packages, you need to 
make sure you keep track of where you move things from.

Once you're happy with zmi.core, you can change the zope.app.* packages 
that you took code from to depend on zmi.core by placing backwards 
compatibility imports in those packages (and modifying their setup.py to 
depend on zmi.core). That's only for backwards compatibility though - 
zmi.core should be installable without having to rely on a lot of 
zope.app.* packages (zope.app.publication and zope.app.form excepted, I 
mean those packages that actually provide the ZMI).

You should try to limit the amount of packages that zmi.core itself 
depends on - it shouldn't be depending on zope.app.* packages for 
instance, otherwise we will get hard-to-understand circular dependencies.

Regards,

Martijn


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

Reply via email to