[Zope3-dev] Re: zope.sendmail having dependency on zope.app.comonent
Philipp von Weitershausen
philipp at weitershausen.de
Fri Aug 31 05:16:56 EDT 2007
On 30 Aug 2007, at 14:19 , Michael Howitz wrote:
> Am 22.08.2007 um 15:53 schrieb Philipp von Weitershausen:
>> Michael Howitz wrote:
>>> while looking at the dependencies of packages in the zope.*
>>> namespace at gocept we found out that zope.sendmail depends on
>> Just to make sure: If we ever had a formal distinction of the
>> zope.* and zope.app.* namespaces, I think we've abandoned it a
>> while ago already. So, it doesn't matter whether a package is in
>> zope.* or zope.app.*, we need to take all interdependencies (also
>> the ones in zope.app.*) into account. So all in all I don't think
>> it's a big problem in zope.sendmail depended on
>> zope.app.component, as long as zope.app.component wouldn't depend
>> on a gazillion other things...
> So, you suggest to leave this dependency as it is as long no-one
In general, yes. That said, zope.app.component isn't the lightest
dependency. It draws in almost all of zope.app.*
>>> zope.sendmail needs
>>> zope.app.component.vocabulary.UtilityVocabulary to define a
>>> vocabulary for the utilities implementing
>>> So we'd suggest to move
>>> zope.app.component.vocabulary.UtilityVocabulary out of the
>>> zope.app.* namespace because it is a generic vocabulary.
>>> Possible places for UtilityVocabulary could be zope.component
>>> (because the concept of utilities is defined there) or
>>> zope.schema (because the concept of vocabularies is defined there).
>>> zope.schema seems to be the better place because zope.component
>>> does not depend on zope.schema yet.
>> But zope.schema does in no way depend on zope.component.
> Yes, you are right. So we would introduce a dependency from
> zope.schema to zope.comonent.
> The only way to get lost of the zope.app dependency seems to be a
> new package "zope.app.sendmail" (including deprecation!). But there
> is already a zope.app.mail which is deprecated and will be removed
> in 3.5.
I don't understand why that is "the only way" and why we have to
create more packages in that dreadful zope.app.* namespace.
One way to break this dependency is to move the UtilityVocabulary out
to a separate package, e.g. zope.utilityvocabulary.
Another way is to simply stop using UtilityVocabulary; this would
also be an opportunity to replace it with a source. zc.sourcefactory
is supposed to make this quite easy (and from what I've seen, it
does), but unfortunately its dependencies aren't exactly light-weight
More information about the Zope3-dev