Shane Hathaway wrote:
> 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.

Maybe we'll leave this behind in* space for the moment and 
focus on the others, then?

>> 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.

It would allow a whole chunk of code to be cut out for those people who 
don't care about XMLRPC or don't even want to enable it on their server.

The reason I bring it up now is because this split would be best done 
while we are moving things out of anyway. If we did 
it afterwards, we'd need a backwards compatibility dependency from 
zope.view on zope.xmlrpcview.



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

Reply via email to