2009/2/25 Martijn Faassen <faas...@startifact.com>: > > I hope in fact zope.app.* will soon become a dumping ground for > deprecated packages providing legacy ZMI support. Of course that will > need the consensus that the ZMI *is* legacy software. I think do we > already have a consensus that packages that provide other useful > functionality shouldn't be providing ZMI support within the same > package.
Though it's a very big +1 from me that packages providing useful functionality shouldn't contain ZMI-related stuff within the same package, and that's our goal, I wouldn't say that ZMI is a legacy software, as it's very useful out of box and can be easily extended to make real use of Zope. I'd rather say that ZMI is an example of extensible application built on top of zope frameworks and it should be positioned like that. BTW, I have a thought about an additional refactoring strategy: we could move ZMI-related packages to separate packages, like zmi.* or something, leaving imports in zope.app.* and making zope.app.* really deprecated. That way we can state that ZMI is not the Zope, but something built on it. And this way gives us more refactoring freedom :) Any thoughts? -- WBR, Dan Korostelev _______________________________________________ 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 )
