On 2009-9-21 17:19, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Generally I believe that these rules if strictly applied wouldn't result
> in a usable ZTK. Hanno already mentions the testing dependencies, which
> we've barely started analyzing. Documentation in 'docs' would disqualify
> just about any package (and Reinout brings up a few objections).
> A number of thoughts:
> * even without radically pruning the ZTK particular subsets of the ZTK
> are becoming a lot more useful than when we started, due the dependency
> refactoring. This refactoring is ongoing.
> * we need some stability for those apps that already are built on top of
> Zope 3. These will still be using zope.app* packages for some time.
> Right now we can test lots of breakages of zope.app* packages by using
> the ZTK compattests. If we removed them from the ZTK soon, we'd need an
> equivalent testing infrastructure for an expanded ZTK, and management
> policy will be harder.
> I think we could translate these rules from "not be part of the ZTK" to
> goals for the ZTK packages:
> - we should aim for ZTK packages to be used by Zope 3 apps, Zope 2 and
> Grok. The code in the ZTK should be *used*.
> - ZTK packages should have narrative documentation. We should actively
> work to create such narrative documentation.
How do you define narrative documentation? Do you consider z3c.form to
have narrative documentation for example?
Wichert Akkerman <wich...@wiggy.net> It is simple to make things.
http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple.
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -