Previously Martijn Faassen wrote: > We have several ways to go: > > a) continue with the current extra dependencies situation like in > zope.component, and in fact clean up other packages that define ZCML to > declare ZCML extra dependencies.
+1 I'ld rather not see a whole slew of extra packagse appear. I also wonder how the extra number of packages and increasing size of sys.path influence performance and restrictions on environments like GAE. > b) pull out all ZCML implementations from where they are now and put > them in special ZCML implementation packages. We could for instance have > zcml.component, or zope.component_zcml, or zope.configuration.component. > We had a bit of a side-tracked discussion about naming and namespace > packages here. +0.5 It solves the problem in a consistent way > c) pull out only those ZCML implementations that cause extra > dependencies beyond zope.configuration. So, we extract the bits of > zope.component into a new package, but we don't extract bits from > zope.security. +0.1 This introduces inconsistencies that might be confusing. Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman <wich...@wiggy.net> It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. _______________________________________________ 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 )