[Zope3-dev] Re: zope.app.schema (and other junk)

[Philipp von Weitershausen]

Jim Fulton wrote:
>> Jim Fulton wrote:
>>> -=-
>>> Modified: Zope3/branches/3.3/doc/CHANGES.txt
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- Zope3/branches/3.3/doc/CHANGES.txt    2006-07-17 19:24:19 UTC
>>> (rev 69162)
>>> +++ Zope3/branches/3.3/doc/CHANGES.txt    2006-07-17 19:26:12 UTC
>>> (rev 69163)
>>> @@ -10,6 +10,10 @@
>>>
>>>      Bugfixes
>>>
>>> +      - Fixed issue 604, Mutable schemas were accidentally included in
>>> +        the 3.2 release even though they weren't ready and didn't
>>> +        work. They are not included in the 3.3 release.
>>> +
>>
>> I see you've removed the zope.app.schema package from the release. I
>> don't think we can do that. The vocabulary registry that looks up
>> vocabularies as utilities is located in there
>> (zope.app.schema.vocabulary). It's a vital part for Zope 3.
> 
> Hm. Why?  I don't really want something that is just an alternate
> spelling for getUtility? Does it provide any value beside looking up
> a utility?

Say you have a schema with a Choice field that refers to a vocabulary.
The field will use the vocabulary registry to look up the vocabulary
(because zope.schema doesn't [want to] know about zope.component). You
can plug in any vocabulary registry into zope.schema you like,
zope.app.schema happens to plug in one that dispatches to a getUtility call.

Perhaps it might make sense to make zope.schema aware of zope.component,
at least optionally. The original author of vocabularies (I think it was
Gary?) didn't intend it to be that way, though.

>> I suggest we remove everything that has to do with mutable schemas
>> somewhere else (zope.mutableschema?) and leave zope.app.schema in the
>> release. Alternatively, we can move the two items I mentioned above to
>> zope.schema and indeed get rid of zope.app.schema in the release.
> 
> OK, I suggest we move the zope.mutable schema out, or even remove it.
> I actually porefer removing it.  It will still be in the repositoiry.  I
> don't want to create a new mysterious directory with non-working code.

+1 Fine by me

Philipp