On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 17:27 +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote: > Hi there, > > Stephan Richter wrote: > [snip] > >> In my opinion going for an extra here just to avoid this is speculating > >> a bit too much right now. Do we really have users that want to use > >> zope.password and really don't want zope.component and zope.schema? If > >> so, we'll hear from them when they speak up and *then* declare an extra > >> or take some other action. > > > > +1. I want more of our decisions to go into this direction. It is a sign > > that > > we turn the # of packages knob as well. > > I agree with you in the case against extras. > > It appears though that Dan has a concrete use case for using > zope.password in a Pylons app where he isn't interested in > zope.component, so I'm +1 on the extra in this case. We'll see whether > this leads to difficulties. Luckily the zope.component and zope.schema > libraries are typically around anyway so it doesn't make reasoning about > the graph that much harder.
I remember that at the sprint we used to identify packages which are "always good". E.g. zope.interface is a declared no-brainer to add to your dependencies. The other two that keep popping up that we *might* wanna white-list are zope.schema and zope.component. In addition this would need documentation as well. Christian -- Christian Theune · c...@gocept.com gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 7 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ 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 )
