On Dec 20, 2008, at 1:59 PM, Chris McDonough wrote: > As a result of messing around with the ZCA + ZCML outside the > context of Zope, > I've found that it may be possible to significantly reduce the > number of egg > dependencies of BFG by replacing the code that allows the following > ZCML > directives to work: > > - utility > - adapter > - interface > - subscriber > > As such, I'm thinking of ditching the handlers written "zope" > namespace for > these directives in favor of handler written in the "bfg" > namespace. So, for
Interesting idea. I suppose the decorator syntax wouldn't change, but the machinery behind it would. > example, rather than doing: > > <configure xmlns="http://namespaces.zope.org/zope";> > > <utility > provides=".interfaces.IFoo" > factory=".foo.Foo"/> > > </configure> > > You would instead do: > > <configure xmlns="http://namespaces.repoze.org/bfg";> > > <utility > provides=".interfaces.IFoo" > factory=".foo.Foo"/> > > </configure> > > The down side of this is that it would mean that existing > applications that used > ZCML would need to change their ZCML, or they'd at least need to > declare > "zope.security" as an install_requires dependency and do a manual > include of the > "zope.component" ZCML: > > <include package="zope.component" file="meta.zcml" /> I think it's pretty reasonable to make that requirement in order to get that gain. Meaning, apps would still work with a one-line setup.py change and a line of ZCML. > Creating parallel "adapter", "utility" and "subscriber" handlers is > really how I > should have started things out, but I didn't, and given that there > are people > using the system in the wild that this would cause problems for in a > new > release, I wanted to ask for comments. > > Here are the dependencies we might be able to shed by doing this: > > zope.location-3.4.0-py2.4.egg > zope.publisher-3.5.4-py2.4.egg > zope.security-3.5.2-py2.4-macosx-10.5-i386.egg > zope.traversing-3.5.0a4-py2.4.egg > zope.i18n-3.6.0-py2.4.egg > pytz-2008i-py2.4.egg > > My personal opinion is that doing this is "worth it" for the long > term. None of > these packages actually *do* anything for bfg apps, they're just > required to > satisfy dependencies of features we can't use. For applications that do a Zope-ish architecture (ZODB, security, etc.), how many of those packages would they need to pull in manually? --Paul _______________________________________________ Repoze-dev mailing list Repoze-dev@lists.repoze.org http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev
