Martijn Faassen wrote:
> I'm not sure about; there's already a which likely 
> does something quite different, and I think a "" package should 
> actually *talk* about REST. What about "zope.httpview" instead?

Well, no, I don't think it's generic enough to call that. 
is almost a webdav implementation, except I'm not sure it implements 
enough to actually work with most webdav clients.

> Another note, I think we should consider splitting off 
>, which looks quite independent from the rest, 
> into its own package. So:
> -> zope.view, zope.xmlrpcview

I've pondered this split before, but AFAICT it would only increase the 
number of dependencies, so I've been waiting for the graph to shrink 
before talking about it.


Zope-Dev maillist  -
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to