Hi there, Martin Aspeli wrote: [snip] > You and I had a discussion a while back about forking the zope.component > ZCML directives, and how it would've been better to work within the > boundaries of the Zope packages so that everyone who wanted to lose the > zope.security dependency could benefit, rather than fork this and all > other configuration that depends on the core ZCML directives. The main > reason you had for creating your own package, was the lack of momentum > (and/or stop energy) encountered when trying to do this in the Zope > world. If there was someone who could both consider BFG's needs in a > more objective light, and have the power to actually do something rather > than just bicker, then maybe we could've gone a different route on that > one. With more and more dependency untangling happening, I am pretty > sure this same situation is going to come up again.
Yes, this is a very good example of why Chris should be in favor of leadership for the Zope Framework. The Grok project would've appreciated such improvements right there in zope.component too. When I brought up the issue of trying to improve zope.component recently, I got a lot of divergent feedback and nothing happened. It'd be nice if instead such energy instead resulted in a concrete set of actions. Regards, Martijn _______________________________________________ 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 )
