<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Chris McDonough <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chrism@plope.com">chrism@plope.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On 4/11/09 7:32 PM, Roger Ineichen wrote:<br>
<br>
>> That much dependency cleanup would be fantastic.<br>
><br>
> Yes, cool, but what exactly whould you like to cleanup?<br>
<br>
</div>The bits that I use are already pretty nicely cleaned up. But in theory, if we<br>
did a more reasonable job of dependency management, I'd be able to use, say,<br>
zope.catalog without getting zope.publisher and ~30 other seemingly unrelated<br>
dependent packages sucked down too. That said, I've already created a forked<br>
catalog implementation (repoze.catalog) that requires only ZODB and zope.index,<br>
so that particular example is not very useful to me personally.<br>
<br>
Maybe there are other pieces that could have a life outside of<br>
Zope-the-application-server. Or maybe not. Maybe they'll just die inside the<br>
appserver. It's actually a heck of a lot easier to clean nothing up and just<br>
continue to do what I've been doing, which is to fork every package that I find<br>
useful so it can be used sanely outside an appserver context. That's been<br>
working out ok so far, and it feels better than needing to communicate on this<br>
maillist in emails like this one. ;-)<br>
<div class="im"><br>
>> Heh. "Repoze" (unqualified with a suffix) is a whole<br>
>> separate thing; BFG obviously has its own naming issues.<br>
><br>
> I know that the spring turns many people crazy sometimes<br>
> but hey, we are developer and there a no girls arround ;-)<br>
><br>
> Let me know if the renaming excess is over and please<br>
> let me know with what I'm working and on what my<br>
> applications are running at that time.<br>
<br>
</div>Hey, don't blame me, I didn't create the "Zope Framework/Toolkit" idea<br>
(personally I am not a fan of the concept). But it probably doesn't matter<br>
anyway. You needn't pay attention to any of this: nothing has changed at all<br>
except for a bunch of names, and even those, not too much.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
</font></blockquote><div><br>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.<br>
<br>Chris<br><br></div></div>