[Zope3-dev] Re: Moving more stuff to zope.products

[Philipp von Weitershausen]

Hi Jim,

>>   - Folder could not be moved out of zope.app, mainly because it is
>>     needed widely by the Zope core for its root folder functionality,
>>     e.g. in the bootstrap process. It it is now in zope.app.folder,
>>     since zope.app.content is a simple module now.
> 
> 
> I like the fact that this is now zope.app.folder.

Mee too. Btw, all the browser and configuration stuff for it is in 
zope.products.content. It's really only the class and the interface that 
had to stay in there for the imports...

> (I'm sorry it couldn't be moved out.  This could be fixed, but I think
>  that this isn't important enough now.)

Agreed. Seeking the places up gave me a good understanding of how this 
dependency is wired up. It's mostly on the 'rootFolder()' function, not 
on the Folder class itself.

>> Comments are appreciated, as well as help chasing down the last test 
>> failures and fixing the modulealias.
> 
> As I mentioend earlier, I don't want zope.products.content and
> zope.products.codecontent.

Oh, I totally misunderstood you then! I thought that was the one you 
were agreeing with me on... Never mind then.

> Please split these into top-level packages
> in zope.products:
> 
>   zope.products.zptpage,
>   zope.products.dtmlpage,
>   zope.products,sqlscript,
>   zope.products,file,
>   zope.products.i18nfile
>   zope.products,image,
>   zope.products.i18nimage

Ahh. Sounds good to me too.

> Before we have you do much more work, I think it would be
> a good idea to step back and work out the new treee as we did for
> namegeddon.

Good idea.

> I suggest doing this on a wiki page.

Will do that.

> I suggest we coordinate this with the switch to ZODB 3 so that we can
> have a conversion script that adjusts class references in pickles.

Ok. Once we have it figured out on the wiki page, I can adjust the 
branch slowly but surely, so it'll be ready when the ZODB3 merge is to 
be done. I guess you'll do the final merging then. When do you expect 
that to happen, so I know the timeframe?

> Finally, I'd like to consider a simplification of the source layout
> as follows. I'd like us to reorganize whatever is left in app so that
> app is much flatter. Further, the division of application, view, and
> interface code should happen within the subfolders of app, rather
> than in app. So, for example, we'd get rid of app.interfaces and
> app.browser.  The folder package, zope.app.folder would have
> interfaces.py, and browser.py.

One part of me wants to yell "Yay", the other has doubts. We have and 
will be taking out of zope.app many things, so it'll be smaller anyway. 
Maybe we'll be able to look at it just like another 'zope.' package...

> The problem with this is that it largely undoes the separation of 
> presentation code we created in namegeddon.  I have to admit, though,
> that this separation wasn't very popular, except, possibly with the
> people it was done for. :)

I feel inbetween the people it was done for and the ones it is unpopular 
with. At first, I found the package hierarchy quite confusing. I 
understood its theory and why it was that way, but it felt unnatural. 
This is probably most people's reaction to it. Lately, I have been 
hearing a lot that Zope3 is too much based on theory and not 
straight-forward enough. Maybe we should pay attention to our very own 
natural feelings in this case and go against the theory...

Well, I'm not helping, am I... :)

Philipp