On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Tres Seaver <tsea...@palladion.com> wrote: > Persistent component registries are not a good enough reason to add such > coupling (I'd be in favor of splitting support for persistent registries > out of zope.component, too, while we're at it). > > Let's put the "broken" support into code which depends on > zope.interface, zope.component, and the ZODB, and invert the dependency > by having the new code install something into the base code which > provides the desired support: the only change to zope.interface should > be documenting the insertion point, and testing that it does the right > thing when a dummy is plugged into it.
I looked at the possible contenders for that dependency description. The ZODB depends on zope.interface itself, though not on zope.component. zope.container is the one that has the most minimal dependencies, while still relying on zope.component and the ZODB. zope.site depends on zope.container, but given its scope sounds like the better place to me. I vaguely remember us discussing to move persistent registries into zope.site at some point. Since we moved zope.site.hooks into zope.component, zope.site doesn't have much else to do anymore. Apart from those two, there's a whole lot more that have far more dependencies or are unrelated in scope, like zope.annotation or zope.catalog. Hanno _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )