Tres Seaver wrote: >> zope.app.applicationcontrol.interfaces.IApplicationControl which may not >> be available either after the dependency on zope.app.applicationcontrol >> has been lifted. > > Hmm, I guess I hadn't realized that the interface was in the zope.app > package. Shouldn't the interface be in a more "dependable" package, from > which clients can import it without depending on a given implementation? > One logical place for the interface is actually in zope.traversing: that > would break the dependency inversion.
OTOH I don't think that the concept of the application controller should be mentioned in zope.traversing which is about something else entirely. I do think that this sounds like the perfect reason to introduce that registry: Some interface IEtcTraverser or similiar might be introduced against which named subscription adapters might be registered. Then, zope.app.application could register its own code to handle the "process" and "applicationControl" names. -- Thomas _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
