Previously Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: > On 30 Aug 2007, at 14:19 , Michael Howitz wrote: > > >Am 22.08.2007 um 15:53 schrieb Philipp von Weitershausen: > > > >>Michael Howitz wrote: > >>>while looking at the dependencies of packages in the zope.* > >>>namespace at gocept we found out that zope.sendmail depends on > >>>zope.app.component. > >> > >>Just to make sure: If we ever had a formal distinction of the > >>zope.* and zope.app.* namespaces, I think we've abandoned it a > >>while ago already. So, it doesn't matter whether a package is in > >>zope.* or zope.app.*, we need to take all interdependencies (also > >>the ones in zope.app.*) into account. So all in all I don't think > >>it's a big problem in zope.sendmail depended on > >>zope.app.component, as long as zope.app.component wouldn't depend > >>on a gazillion other things... > > > >So, you suggest to leave this dependency as it is as long no-one > >complains? > > In general, yes. That said, zope.app.component isn't the lightest > dependency. It draws in almost all of zope.app.* > > >>>zope.sendmail needs > >>>zope.app.component.vocabulary.UtilityVocabulary to define a > >>>vocabulary for the utilities implementing > >>>zope.sendmail.interfaces.IMailDelivery. > >>>So we'd suggest to move > >>>zope.app.component.vocabulary.UtilityVocabulary out of the > >>>zope.app.* namespace because it is a generic vocabulary. > >>>Possible places for UtilityVocabulary could be zope.component > >>>(because the concept of utilities is defined there) or > >>>zope.schema (because the concept of vocabularies is defined there). > >>>zope.schema seems to be the better place because zope.component > >>>does not depend on zope.schema yet. > >> > >>But zope.schema does in no way depend on zope.component. > > > >Yes, you are right. So we would introduce a dependency from > >zope.schema to zope.comonent. > >The only way to get lost of the zope.app dependency seems to be a > >new package "zope.app.sendmail" (including deprecation!). But there > >is already a zope.app.mail which is deprecated and will be removed > >in 3.5. > > I don't understand why that is "the only way" and why we have to > create more packages in that dreadful zope.app.* namespace. > > One way to break this dependency is to move the UtilityVocabulary out > to a separate package, e.g. zope.utilityvocabulary. > > Another way is to simply stop using UtilityVocabulary; this would > also be an opportunity to replace it with a source. zc.sourcefactory > is supposed to make this quite easy (and from what I've seen, it > does), but unfortunately its dependencies aren't exactly light-weight > either.
Is there documentation on sources anywhere? The last time I checked there was nothing that I could understand either in zope.* or on the wiki. Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. _______________________________________________ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
