[Zope3-dev] Allowing views to be registered for classes ratherthaninterfaces.

[Garrett Smith]

Steve Alexander wrote:
> The associations between implementations and interfaces and views are
> very well defined by interfaces. These dependencies are easy to see
> and inspect. There are other dependencies that are less well defined,
> such as those brought about by subclassing.
>=20
> I would suggest that you will find subclassing for code reuse among
> implementations within zope.app.(not interfaces or browser).
>=20
> I suggest that there is subclassing for reuse among implementations
> within zope.app.browser.
>=20
> I suggest there is no subclassing for reuse between zope.app.browser
> and zope.app.(not interfaces or browser) and zope.app.interfaces.
>=20
> Do you think this is a good reason to keep the packages separate?

As a third party developer, I really don't care where my superclasses
are located. Why is this an issue for zope development? (I might be
missing your point.)

I'm not arguing that implementations are *not* related by subclass
relationships. I'm arguing that something like i18nfile and workflow
'projects' are units whose internal relationships are *stronger than*
their respective relationships to superclasses.

I realize this is debatable...you certainly have a point. I suppose I've
just grown accustomed to the many other frameworks that organize their
classes by function, and not by class type.

But variety is the spice, no? ;-)

 -- Garrett