On 4/11/09 7:32 PM, Roger Ineichen wrote:

>> That much dependency cleanup would be fantastic.
>
> Yes, cool, but what exactly whould you like to cleanup?

The bits that I use are already pretty nicely cleaned up.  But in theory, if we
did a more reasonable job of dependency management, I'd be able to use, say,
zope.catalog without getting zope.publisher and ~30 other seemingly unrelated
dependent packages sucked down too.  That said, I've already created a forked
catalog implementation (repoze.catalog) that requires only ZODB and zope.index,
so that particular example is not very useful to me personally.

Maybe there are other pieces that could have a life outside of
Zope-the-application-server.  Or maybe not.  Maybe they'll just die inside the
appserver.   It's actually a heck of a lot easier to clean nothing up and just
continue to do what I've been doing, which is to fork every package that I find
useful so it can be used sanely outside an appserver context.  That's been
working out ok so far, and it feels better than needing to communicate on this
maillist in emails like this one. ;-)

>> Heh.  "Repoze" (unqualified with a suffix) is a whole
>> separate thing; BFG obviously has its own naming issues.
>
> I know that the spring turns many people crazy sometimes
> but hey, we are developer and there a no girls arround ;-)
>
> Let me know if the renaming excess is over and please
> let me know with what I'm working and on what my
> applications are running at that time.

Hey, don't blame me, I didn't create the "Zope Framework/Toolkit" idea
(personally I am not a fan of the concept).  But it probably doesn't matter
anyway.  You needn't pay attention to any of this: nothing has changed at all
except for a bunch of names, and even those, not too much.