Shane Hathaway wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> I'm not sure about zope.rest; there's already a z3c.rest which likely
>> does something quite different, and I think a "zope.rest" package should
>> actually *talk* about REST. What about "zope.httpview" instead?
> Well, no, I don't think it's generic enough to call that. zope.app.http
> 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 zope.app.* space for the moment and
focus on the others, then?
>> Another note, I think we should consider splitting off
>> zope.app.publisher.xmlrpc, which looks quite independent from the rest,
>> into its own package. So:
>> zope.app.publisher -> 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 zope.app.publisher anyway. If we did
it afterwards, we'd need a backwards compatibility dependency from
zope.view on zope.xmlrpcview.
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -