On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Chris McDonough <chr...@plope.com> wrote:
> On 4/11/09 7:32 PM, Roger Ineichen wrote: > > >> That much dependency cleanup would be fantastic. > > > > Yes, cool, but what exactly whould you like to cleanup? > > The bits that I use are already pretty nicely cleaned up. But in theory, > if we > did a more reasonable job of dependency management, I'd be able to use, > say, > zope.catalog without getting zope.publisher and ~30 other seemingly > unrelated > dependent packages sucked down too. That said, I've already created a > forked > catalog implementation (repoze.catalog) that requires only ZODB and > zope.index, > so that particular example is not very useful to me personally. > > Maybe there are other pieces that could have a life outside of > Zope-the-application-server. Or maybe not. Maybe they'll just die inside > the > appserver. It's actually a heck of a lot easier to clean nothing up and > just > continue to do what I've been doing, which is to fork every package that I > find > useful so it can be used sanely outside an appserver context. That's been > working out ok so far, and it feels better than needing to communicate on > this > maillist in emails like this one. ;-) > > >> Heh. "Repoze" (unqualified with a suffix) is a whole > >> separate thing; BFG obviously has its own naming issues. > > > > I know that the spring turns many people crazy sometimes > > but hey, we are developer and there a no girls arround ;-) > > > > Let me know if the renaming excess is over and please > > let me know with what I'm working and on what my > > applications are running at that time. > > Hey, don't blame me, I didn't create the "Zope Framework/Toolkit" idea > (personally I am not a fan of the concept). But it probably doesn't matter > anyway. You needn't pay attention to any of this: nothing has changed at > all > except for a bunch of names, and even those, not too much. > > Rightly or wrongly, before the naming discussion came up, I was basically already considering Repoze to be the Zope toolkit. Or Zope 4. The *stated* goals for Zope Mega(tm) seem to align fairly closely with what Repoze already is: extraction of the good, useful ideas from Zope into reusable modules, refactored so as to avoid dependency hell. Some packages in the zope.* namespace are already nice and reusable as is--I don't really care if the tool of the moment starts with zope.* or repoze.*. If the trend were merely to continue these sorts of refactors, call it Zope, or Repoze, or whatever, you would find no complaint from me. Chris
_______________________________________________ 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 )