[Zope-dev] Dependencies and future of zope 3

[David Pratt]

Roger, what you say makes good sense. I will get agreement signed and
sent and off to Jim. I am much more optimistic than I have been for a
long time. This stuff has really been bothering me since I am
concerned about efficient wsgi virtual host deployments and zope is
unnecessarily heavy.

Personally I would like to see a core zope install with a footprint of
no more that 20MB with just essential packages. I am a believer in
zope and I am encouraged by the support for change. I also realize
some of this will be disruptive but it is necessary.  A wiki page will
be helpful to communicate and get the best ideas for moving ahead.
There are a number of good folks here that understand the
circumstances so we have an excellent opportunity to act on this.

On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 9:09 PM, Roger Ineichen <dev at projekt01.ch> wrote:
> Hi David
>
>> Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] Dependencies and future of zope 3
>>
>> Hey Roger. Sounds reasonable to me. Can we also discuss the
>> potential of only including testing setup for dev eggs and
>> removing testing as part of a release when the eggs are
>> packaged to pypi or other repository for consumption.
>
> I guess we do not have tets eggs. What do you mean with
> test eggs.
>
> I think extras_require test is a pattern which let's you
> use the extras or not if you use an egg. By default
> an egg has only dependencies the defined packages
> in install_requires. Or are I'm wrong?
>
>> Besides loosing the dependency, this makes for happier folks
>> external to zope that consume our eggs.
>>
>> While I personally do not like the contributor agreement, I
>> am willing to sign to help out to work with you and others to
>> get this settled. I am busy just like anyone else, but this
>> stuff with the dependencies has to end now. Weve been with
>> eggs for more than a couple years, progress has been made but
>> it has been slow. Seriously, let's see what we can do to.
>
> Cool any help is welcome.
>
>> The browser packages are a good place to start. Testing
>> another. Third would be seriously examining dependencies of
>> core again once this is done. Fourth might be tackling some
>> of the zope.xxx zope.app.xxx relationships. Some of the stale
>> packages in the main repository and placing them at another
>> location if they are unmaintained might also be in order.
>
> I think we should start with identify the hard core dependencies
> and list them in a proposal or another document in the zope wiki.
> Anybody can list their ideas of what should be done and list
> ideas how we can solve the problems. We also can use that
> paper for vote about the different refactorings.
>
> Such a proposal/paper could also be usefull for others which
> don't read each mail.
>
> We have different kind of refactorings which all solve some
> problems. I think we should not start with the browser views.
> There are some core dependencies we need to cleanup first.
>
> Right now I'm working forward with small refactorings
> which solve some dependencies to zope.app.form (ITerms) and
> zope.app.authentication (IPaswordManager).
>
> After that, my goal is to work on the testing framework,
> offering a clean testing (skin) layer, which should make it
> possible to write functional tests without to use the basic,
> default or rotterdam skin and the zope.app.authentication
> package.
>
> I guess that's what the repoze people need to have too.
>
> Your help is defently very welcome. Go ahead with the
> contributor agreement sing up and let Jim know that
> I volunteer for you.
>
>
>> If we want to folks to use zope we need to be friendly to
>> wsgi with or without a zodb and show both sides of the coin -
>> that CA + choice of backend + zope security + choice of
>> traversal method (with publisher) == interesting, productive,
>> mature, dynamic and efficient.
>
> Sounds interesting but let's put that on the todo later list.
>
> Regards
> Roger Ineichen
> _____________________________
> END OF MESSAGE
>
>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Roger Ineichen
>> <dev at projekt01.ch> wrote:
>> > Hi
>> >
>> >> Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] Dependencies and future of zope 3
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Stephan Richter
>> >> <srichter at cosmos.phy.tufts.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > For several packages we took the following approach.
>> Most packages
>> >> > that have browser packages are in zope.app; for example,
>> >> > zope.app.folder (we did not convert this package yet). We
>> >> then took the API and moved it to zope.folder.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe we should create a new namespace package for "browser" code.
>> >>
>> >> How about "zope.browser"?
>> >
>> > Most packages which are interesting for reuse provide more or less
>> > only ZMI related views.
>> >
>> > What about zope.zmi if they provide views for the ZMI. This
>> views are
>> > allmost unuseable outside the ZMI (know as Rotterdam skin)
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > Roger Ineichen
>> >
>> >> --
>> >> Benji York
>> >> Senior Software Engineer
>> >> Zope Corporation
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev at zope.org
>> >> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
>> >> **  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  ** (Related lists -
>> >> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
>> >>  http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
>> >>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev at zope.org
>> > http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
>> > **  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  ** (Related lists -
>> > http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
>> >  http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
>> >
>>
>
>