Previously Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> On 30 Aug 2007, at 14:19 , Michael Howitz wrote:
> >Am 22.08.2007 um 15:53 schrieb Philipp von Weitershausen:
> >
> >>Michael Howitz wrote:
> >>>while looking at the dependencies of packages in the zope.*  
> >>>namespace at gocept we found out that zope.sendmail depends on  
> >>>
> >>
> >>Just to make sure: If we ever had a formal distinction of the  
> >>zope.* and* namespaces, I think we've abandoned it a  
> >>while ago already. So, it doesn't matter whether a package is in  
> >>zope.* or*, we need to take all interdependencies (also  
> >>the ones in*) into account. So all in all I don't think  
> >>it's a big problem in zope.sendmail depended on  
> >>, as long as wouldn't depend  
> >>on a gazillion other things...
> >
> >So, you suggest to leave this dependency as it is as long no-one  
> >complains?
> In general, yes. That said, isn't the lightest  
> dependency. It draws in almost all of*
> >>>zope.sendmail needs  
> >>> to define a  
> >>>vocabulary for the utilities implementing  
> >>>zope.sendmail.interfaces.IMailDelivery.
> >>>So we'd suggest to move  
> >>> out of the  
> >>>* namespace because it is a generic vocabulary.
> >>>Possible places for UtilityVocabulary could be zope.component  
> >>>(because the concept of utilities is defined there) or  
> >>>zope.schema (because the concept of vocabularies is defined there).
> >>>zope.schema seems to be the better place because zope.component  
> >>>does not depend on zope.schema yet.
> >>
> >>But zope.schema does in no way depend on zope.component.
> >
> >Yes, you are right. So we would introduce a dependency from  
> >zope.schema to zope.comonent.
> >The only way to get lost of the dependency seems to be a  
> >new package "" (including deprecation!). But there  
> >is already a which is deprecated and will be removed  
> >in 3.5.
> I don't understand why that is "the only way" and why we have to  
> create more packages in that dreadful* namespace.
> One way to break this dependency is to move the UtilityVocabulary out  
> to a separate package, e.g. zope.utilityvocabulary.
> Another way is to simply stop using UtilityVocabulary; this would  
> also be an opportunity to replace it with a source. zc.sourcefactory  
> is supposed to make this quite easy (and from what I've seen, it  
> does), but unfortunately its dependencies aren't exactly light-weight  
> either.

Is there documentation on sources anywhere? The last time I checked
there was nothing that I could understand either in zope.* or
on the wiki.


Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>    It is simple to make things.                   It is hard to make things simple.
Zope3-dev mailing list

Reply via email to