Oops. Forgot to cc the list.
Gary Poster wrote:
> On May 7, 2006, at 4:47 PM, Jim Washington wrote:
>> Following along from Gary's idea that zc.resourcelibrary could be done
>> as WSGI middeware, I am now previewing headincludes, a wsgi middleware
>> filter with an alternative implementation of zc.resourcelibrary. It
>> usurps a lot of zc.resourcelibrary configuration for compatibility, so
>> they cannot be used at the same time. But reconfiguring is just a
>> matter of a few files.
>> For more information go to http://zif.hill-street.net/headincludes .
>> The readme is at http://zif.hill-street.net/headincludes/README.txt .
>> development status: "works for me"
> :-) awesome!
> What do you think about some or all of the following:
> - moving development of all three of these to zope.org svn?
OK. I do not have commit privileges on zope.org svn. But you do, and I
do not mind if you put these packages up there.
> - putting them in a namespace?
Probably a good idea. If it was only one... well, but I do seem to have
gotten prolific. :)
> - merging zc.resourcelibrary and headincludes?
That would require a commitment to wsgi filters, or maybe some fun with
imports, but also OK.
> - the possibility that we might want to include things not only in the
> head later (some old JS code wanted to be at the end, for instance)
> and so "resourcelibrary", or at least something less specific than
> "headincludes", might be a better name?
That could be fun as well. Naming is not all that important to me. For
this iteration, I just needed to distinguish headincludes from
zc.resourcelibrary to avoid name clashes.
> More concretely, I suggest three new projects in zope.org:
> z3c.resourcelibrary (deprecating zc.resourcelibrary)
Go for it (on whichever namespace gets decided). These three projects,
I feel a need to reiterate, need zope.paste and Paste.Deploy (or a
similar stack), to use with zope3, so deprecating zc.resourcelibrary may
not be a good idea until more folks are on-board with the wsgi filters
idea. gzipper and jsmin really have no particular ties to zope at all,
except that I used Zope3 for developing them, and they probably work OK
in Zope3 as a consequence. (PS. er, actually, the packer in jsmin came
> You could also choose "zc"--that could stand for "zope community" as
> much as "zope corporation"--but it might cause confusion. "z" has
> also been proposed. :-) The "zope" namespace means "from the Zope
> project", not specifically for zope (see zope.interface, for instance)
> so there's ample precedent for general things going in a "z*"
> What do you think? Getting the code in a publicly-accessible repo,
> ideally svn.zope.org, is my primary desire--everything else is
> (I don't have as much use personally for your JSON-server right now,
> btw, but maybe that would be good to put in the repo too?)
jsonserver is sitting happily in z3labs, where Balazs Ree and I are
working (slowly) on a unified package for zope2 /five and zope3. It's a
moving target, and we keep going off on interesting tangents. :)
So, to recap, I have largely positive thoughts about your suggestions.
And please feel free to put whichever of these packages you feel are
appropriate wherever you wish on svn.zope.org. How's that for flexibility?
Zope3-users mailing list