Paul Everitt wrote: >> zope.configuration doesn't provide any decorator syntax, but if you >> mean the > > Sorry, I meant repoze.bfg.convention. I believe that, under the hood, > it's doing the same configuration work as ZCML.
It is but it's a separate issue. We could choose to make parallel utility/subscriber/adapter/interface decorators if we wanted (ala grokcore), but it'd be a feature unrelated to this change. >>> For applications that do a Zope-ish architecture (ZODB, security, etc.), >>> how many of those packages would they need to pull in manually? >> >> Security is not a feature provided by any Zope package in a BFG app; ZODB >> requires whatever its setup.py says it requires. >> >> In terms of the Zope-ish applications we (Agendaless) are developing >> under BFG, >> no changes would need to be made to any setup.py "install_requires". > > Right, I meant the latter. For people that are writing BFG applications > that smell like Zope (e.g. KARL), how many of those packages would still > be used, thus lessening the "win" in that case? None of those are used by our apps. - C _______________________________________________ Repoze-dev mailing list Repoze-dev@lists.repoze.org http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev
