On 10/12/09 01:22 , Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
> * 2009-10-09 15:37, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> I'm okay with *not* doing the split up and going with your idea, but I
>> think eventually such a split up would simplify things. One advantage
>> would be that someone could examine repoze.zcml and not see distracting
>> ZCML implementations in zope.component *too*.
> I may be wrong, but I suppose the dependency on zope.security in
> zope.component is the only reason why repoze.zcml is around.
Perhaps it is an idea to make zope.component an extension for
repoze.zcml? repoze.zcml already exists and works well, and people who
want the extra zope magic can keep using zope.component. I suspect that
is less work than trying to split up zope.component.
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -