[Zope3-dev] Re: Tracking eggification of zope.* packages

[Jim Fulton]

Baiju M wrote:
> On 11/5/06, Jim Fulton <jim at zope.com> wrote:
>> I meant to note that the efforts to eggify many packages
>> is a crucial and much appreciated first step in the effort
>> to get an agg-based Zope 3 (and someday Zope 2) checkout and
>> distribution.
> 
> Now most of the zope.* packages are eggified, but some packages should be
> considered broken because it's functional testing are not working.
> 
> We have to use test layers for functional testing with at least one
> layer per package based on ZCMLLayer ? 

Ideally, yes. This should be our goal.

 > Then there will be
> TestBroserLayer, PublisherLayer etc.
> or should we create a ZopeAppServerLayer derived from ZCMLLayer and
> use it for  the packages where application server is required to run
> tests?

See Fred's response.  Note that an alternative, in the short term
is to create a buildout that either includes or uses an
existing Zope 3 installation.  This will allow the existing
functional alyer to be used.  It requires specifying the Zope 3
src directory in the extra-paths option of the testrunner section.

> To eggify zope.app.* packages we should implement this proposal ? :
> http://wiki.zope.org/zope3/LoadingConfigurationFromTheZopeAppEgg

Yes.


> I have implemented this in my checkout with an ugly hack and tried to 
> eggify
> one package, can anyone review this ?
> ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/zissue/z3/zope.app.container.tar.bz2

I don't have time to look at this atm.

> Where do we place zope.app.* individual packages in subversion?
> If we are placing it in toplevel (under main) there will be about 90+ 
> packages.
> What about creating a 'zope.app' directory in toplevel and put all
> zope.app.* packages there ?

This is a good question.  Several months ago, the same questions was
raised wrt Zope 2 Products, which are mostly in the Products package.
At the time, we decided to stick with top-level projects because:

- That was the subversion standard practice, and

- Shallow is better than deep, in general.

I wonder, however, if that was the best decision.

The list of projects at:

   http://svn.zope.org/

Is already rather long and unweildy, It is likely to get worse.
The fact that most things begin with "z" makes it even harder to
scan. :)

Personally, I wouldn't object to organizing things by namespace
packages.  Of course, zope.app is an odd case because there will be
both a zope.app namespace package and a project that we'd be tempted
to name zope.app.

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