-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Chris McDonough wrote:
Everything Tres said I agree with.
I think it's useful for descriptions of Zope-related frameworks to include BFG and other frameworks that use a small number of Zope technologies. But I think some distinction needs to be made between "the ZTK" and "some Zope packages".
In particular, I'm uncomfortable with descriptions of BFG that say it "depends on the ZTK" because the current formal definition of the ZTK is what's in its buildout include file, or at least its defined by the packages listed at http://docs.zope.org/zopetoolkit/releases/packages-trunk.html.
By this definition, BFG isn't (and will never be) a "ZTK consumer", because it doesn't use 95% of those packages; however it is very much a bicycle repair kit consumer.
So it seems like a good idea to explicitly distinguish the set of packages that BFG uses from "the ZTK" by giving the bicycle repair toolkit a name and saying that the ZTK depends on that, if only to give another "target point" in a diagram that includes frameworks that don't use the entire ZTK. "ZCA" seems good enough to me, although I don't really care what it's called.
The ZTK steering group does give a tiny bit of formal recognition to the "ZCA" / "bicycle seat toolkit" subset, in that those packages are supposed to try harder to keep compatibility with Python 2.4 than the larger set which is the ZTK proper. This de facto recognition is precisely because the ZCA pacakges are already in wide use outside the "Zope ecosphere", IIRC. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAktY8x4ACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ4WXwCgnEcHV/TqHtCa+6iQrm1xRa4k 7vwAn1DjFhWDAyPrtUzSDPKoEA4BigV6 =QD4Q -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----