[Zope-CMF] Re: Tools as local utilities

Jens Vagelpohl jens at dataflake.org
Thu Feb 8 14:22:04 EST 2007

Hash: SHA1

On 6 Feb 2007, at 20:23, yuppie wrote:

> Rocky wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 5:40 pm, Jens Vagelpohl <j...- 
>> G0EXMjp3EnnNLxjTenLetw at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>> On 5 Feb 2007, at 19:43, Rocky Burt wrote:
>>>> Yep, looks like I'll be starting on five.localsitemanager pretty
>>>> soon.  Although I didn't see if we decided anywhere how that  
>>>> would get
>>>> included with CMF (with plone it's pretty simple as we already
>>>> distribute python/lib stuff).
>>> Not knowing any better I was assuming there'd be a Zope 2-style
>>> product, which we could pull in as a SVN external?
>> Hm... well, as long as I avoid absolute imports in
>> five.localsitemanager there's no reason it couldn't be included  
>> into a
>> CMF product (perhas CMFCore ?) via svn:externals.  That's not
>> something I'm particularly fond of but I'm not against it.
>> But as time moves on this is going to become more and more of an  
>> issue
>> for CMF (code that isn't expected to live in Products/).
> I'd like to see python/lib packages shipped with CMF. If someone  
> makes the necessary repository and distribution changes, I'd be  
> happy to convert some of the new modules like CMFDefault.formlib to  
> Python packages.

Let's get this discussion back from generic pie-in-the-sky to the  
simple situation where we just need this one package integrated into  
CMF 2.1, and quickly.

Wichert wants a Plone 3 beta very very soon, there is no time to  
switch the CMF to any other packaging/buildout mechanism before that.  
What happens on the trunk after the 2.1 branch is cut, I don't care.  
I do care about getting the 2.1 beta out quickly. All that's missing  
is merging the tool/utility stuff, which depends on having this new  
component registry.

Taking this into account, how should the five.localsitemanager thing  
be packaged?


Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)


More information about the Zope-CMF mailing list