On Mar 2, 2006, at 6:41 AM, Peter Bengtsson wrote:

I'm with Max on this one.

What's the point? To save a few megabytes of harddisk space?
If you don't want the zope.bobo part of your zope3, ignore it. You
don't have to use it if you don't want to.

Let's keep it simple, bundle it all in one fat package and ignore the
excessive zmi files that gets thrown in.

That's a reasonable position; Zope 2 has really done well under this model. But one of Zope's historical problems been that no two people have the same vision of what that "one fat package" should actually do. Is it a content management system? An app server? A collection of Python packages? It's all of those things to some level or another, but it's hard to "keep it tidy" when the huge package is being pulled in all of those directions. It's be easier to compose the big package out of smaller, independently-maintained bits. It's not just "excessive ZMI files" that clutter things up, cross-package dependencies creep in because nobody can tell what the boundaries are, and then it's impossible to not distribute the whole huge honking tarball.

It's also important to let the good parts of Zope thrive naturally on their own and let the bad parts die, and in order for this to happen they need to be packaged independently. Zope 2 was *meant* to be a collection of smaller packages that could work outside of Zope-the- framework, but because of packaging issues, only a few things actually do work well outside (ZPT and ZODB).

- C

Zope3-users mailing list

Reply via email to