Tres Seaver wrote:
> I think we need to clarify terms / triage the sets of packages we are
> talking about:
Sure, agreed, though I think we can already work with 'reusable' and
'not reusable' right now as hints to users. The 'not reusable' group
consists of 'wannabe reusable' and 'implausible it'll ever be reusable'.
I also expect we'll end up with some packages that have reasonable
dependencies but still a *lot* of dependencies - does that mean they're
reusable or not? If not, what if Grok still needs one?
I'd be happy to see someone triage the existing set of packages in the
categories Tres proposes.
> - zope.app.container (Products.Five.browser.adding)
Should be easy enough to move to zope.container, hopefully.
> - zope.app.form (Products.Five.form.*)
This actually isn't that bad in the reusability department; it's mostly
a bunch of widgets. Not that it's the be all end all form library by a
long shot, and most of our libraries shouldn't be depending on it, but
it's not a bad thing to have it in the ZTK for now.
> I'm not enough up on Grok to do a similar analysis there.
Grok is mostly split up into grokcore.* packages which list explicit
dependencies in their setup.py. I think grokcore.view is holding in the
most dependencies at the moment.
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -