[ZODB-Dev] RE: lost "implementer"

[Jim Fulton]

Tim Peters wrote:
...
> That's my fault, and I apologize for the inconvenience.  Alas, I'm not sure
> it won't happen again -- while sharing packages across projects has many
> attractions, it also creates that many more opportunities for "related"
> projects to get out of synch wrt the package versions they include, and it
> would take real effort to coordinate which package versions all related
> projects include.  While there's nothing wrong with "real effort", the
> _kind_ of real effort needed is akin to teaching a family of cats spread
> across the globe to dance in unison with each other ;-)

I have 2 answers. :)

1. This points out the benefit of not treating Zope as a library.
    Zope releases contain specific configurations of packages known
    to work together.  It should have control over that configuration
    and it can't do that if everything is slammed into one global place.

    We decided for Zope 3 to leverage distutils to make the Windows
    installer. We thought we'd try the distutils "way" of installing
    things into site-packages.  IMO, it was worth trying.  Now we know
    that it really isn't the right approach, despite the fact that it
    provided some benefits.

    I still *want* to leverage distutils, or at least some technology
    that is broadly adopted by the Python community.

2. I think a real packaging system, like eggs would have helped here.
    Eggs in particular would have allowed multiple versions of zope.interface
    to be installed.  Zope would have gotten the version it needed and ZODB
    would have gotten the version it needed. (Hm, maybe eggs *would* make
    treating Zope as a library work. :)

Jim

-- 
Jim Fulton           mailto:jim at zope.com       Python Powered!
CTO                  (540) 361-1714            http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation     http://www.zope.com       http://www.zope.org