Tres Seaver wrote:
zope.app.applicationcontrol.interfaces.IApplicationControl which may not be available either after the dependency on zope.app.applicationcontrol has been lifted.
Hmm, I guess I hadn't realized that the interface was in the zope.app package. Shouldn't the interface be in a more "dependable" package, from which clients can import it without depending on a given implementation? One logical place for the interface is actually in zope.traversing: that would break the dependency inversion.
OTOH I don't think that the concept of the application controller should be mentioned in zope.traversing which is about something else entirely. I do think that this sounds like the perfect reason to introduce that registry: Some interface IEtcTraverser or similiar might be introduced against which named subscription adapters might be registered. Then, zope.app.application could register its own code to handle the "process" and "applicationControl" names. -- Thomas