-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Chris McDonough wrote:
> Everything Tres said I agree with.
> I think it's useful for descriptions of Zope-related frameworks to include
> and other frameworks that use a small number of Zope technologies. But I
> some distinction needs to be made between "the ZTK" and "some Zope packages".
> In particular, I'm uncomfortable with descriptions of BFG that say it
> on the ZTK" because the current formal definition of the ZTK is what's in its
> buildout include file, or at least its defined by the packages listed at
> By this definition, BFG isn't (and will never be) a "ZTK consumer", because
> doesn't use 95% of those packages; however it is very much a bicycle repair
> So it seems like a good idea to explicitly distinguish the set of packages
> BFG uses from "the ZTK" by giving the bicycle repair toolkit a name and
> that the ZTK depends on that, if only to give another "target point" in a
> diagram that includes frameworks that don't use the entire ZTK. "ZCA" seems
> good enough to me, although I don't really care what it's called.
The ZTK steering group does give a tiny bit of formal recognition to the
"ZCA" / "bicycle seat toolkit" subset, in that those packages are
supposed to try harder to keep compatibility with Python 2.4 than the
larger set which is the ZTK proper. This de facto recognition is
precisely because the ZCA pacakges are already in wide use outside the
"Zope ecosphere", IIRC.
Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tsea...@palladion.com
Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -