Am 26.08.2011, 09:51 Uhr, schrieb Wolfgang Schnerring <>:

> However, what's important to me is that we try to make packages
> cohesive, and that we try to make integration between packages
> understandable.
> The current zope.component, because it came out of the Zope3 monolith,
> contains integration bits to various other Zope packages:
> - zope.event
> -
> - zope.configuration
> - ZODB
> In that light, it makes a lot of sense to me to have two (or more?)
> packages, "core" and "integration", but I'd *very* much like them to be
> named in a way that one can tell this fact from their names.
> What remains is the issue that zope.component *also* contains code for
> the thread-local site concept -- which doesn't feel like an integration
> with another package, but might not be considered core functionality,
> either (I'm not sure yet but I lean towards considering it core).


I think that what you suggest is too much for the moment and I think it  
even contains the Zope 3 risk of trying to get everything right. I have  
the feeling that getting things right is going to take a lot more  
head-scratching and beard-pulling!

Tres' proposal has the not inconsiderable advantage of merging work  
already done. You are right to point out inconsistencies and warts but  
against that should be weighed the possibility of making a port to Python  
3.x a real possibility. And, given that the work has come from an external  
if related project, the main aim of exposing these libraries to the wider  
world has been achieved.

So from +1 for Tres proposal and +1 for a roadmap on this.

Regarding Withers suggestion - should we be looking to move these  
libraries to the WSGI namespace? Or are there real use cases outside the  
web world?

Charlie Clark
Managing Director
Clark Consulting & Research
German Office
Helmholtzstr. 20
D- 40215
Tel: +49-211-600-3657
Mobile: +49-178-782-6226
Zope-Dev maillist  -
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to