[Grok-dev] Re: Salt & z3c.autoinclude
Martin Aspeli
optilude at gmx.net
Tue Mar 25 19:40:34 EDT 2008
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> I can imagine a design where we load up an extra plone.zcml file if it's
> there too. I don't think this is a good idea though.
>
> I think a Zope package with optional Plone stuff should typically be
> *two* packages - the Zope one, and then a Plone specific one that
> depends on the Zope one. Having an "optional view that works best with
> Plone" is a recipe for evolving the package to "it only works with
> Plone" anyway (I've seen this happen). Splitting it up into multiple
> packages is just plain good engineering.
>
> I know that some people use ZCML in a very different way and have
> fundamentally different ZCML files for the same package, and are really
> adamant we should not get in the way of this use case. I think that's
> all we should do: not get in the way (the directive doesn't *have* to be
> used), but otherwise not worry about it - they're going to include their
> ZCML manually anyway.
In general I agree with this and I'm a strong advocate of the "two
packages" approach - this is why we have the plone.* namespace for
things built by the Plone community that we envisage being reusable
outside Plone, and plone.app.* for things intimately tied to
Plone-the-application.
The only thing that worries me is that we are doing this automatically
here: looking up entry points, pulling in ZCML. In my experience, you
often need a little bit of extra control for the corner cases. If we at
least avoid shutting the door to such control being added (and I think
we're fine with the current state of things) then that gives me peace of
mind.
Martin
--
Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who
want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book
More information about the Grok-dev
mailing list