Am Donnerstag, 21. Februar 2008 04:41 schrieb Stephan Richter:
> On Monday 18 February 2008, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
> > - Only widgets?
> > - Combinations of schemas and widgets?
> > - Also schemas without widgets (like an Email schema that inherits from a
> > TextLine and thus uses a TextWidget)?
>
> These are good questions. We started already collecting the schema fields
> in z3c.schema. So I think z3c.formwidget should only contain the widgets
> and converters.

Ah, ok, I was not aware of the z3c.schema package.
Anyway, Roger suggested to solve this in another style by creating an egg for 
each schema and widget, e.g. z3c.schema.email, z3c.formwidget.email, 
z3c.schema.telephone, z3c.formwidget.telephone etc. He made some good points 
there, so I'm unsure which way to go?

I think this leads to an "eggsplosion", but Roger stated that this is exactly 
what the concept of eggs is all about. However, I'm still unsure that 
handling hundreds of eggs is really a viable way.

For instance, I use z3c.form from the SVN repository, this way I always have 
the newest release via a simple checkout. However, it was quite some work to 
checkout/configure all other packages z3c.form needs, such as z3c.pagelet, 
z3c.formui etc. etc. So, in case of an eggsplosion, where a package has e.g. 
50 dependencies, using an SVN version is a mess, especially when a SVN 
version depends on code available only in the SVN and not as Egg. Are such 
cases all really thought out?

Best Regards,
Hermann

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG key ID: 299893C7 (on keyservers)
FP: 0124 2584 8809 EF2A DBF9  4902 64B4 D16B 2998 93C7
_______________________________________________
Zope3-users mailing list
Zope3-users@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users

Reply via email to