[Zope-dev] Zope Toolkit - packages with zope.app dependencies

[Martijn Faassen]

Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> zope.file
> 
> I think this package is just misnamed and should have been
> zope.app.file. It's a full blown content type implementation, with
> dependencies on zope.app.form, providing browser view code, browser
> menus and quite a bit of zope.app integration. It's test setup needs a
> full blown ZODB and publisher environment.
> 
> ACTION: I'd remove this from the ZTK until someone is willing to
> refactor it to provide a minimal file implementation.

+1

> zope.formlib and friends
> 
> zope.formlib depends on zope.app.form which in turn depends on many
> zope.app packages. zope.html and zope.mimetype both depend on
> zope.formlib or zope.app.form.
> 
> Various people myself included looked at the zope.formlib /
> zope.app.form split to see if it can be refactored in a sensible way.
> I think the conclusion has so far been: there's just no way. There
> isn't a sensible set of basic principles or interfaces in formlib,
> that can form a base for a higher level zope.app.form. All the
> packages using formlib today actually make use of the widgets in
> zope.app.form and thus basically on the entire functionality.

I'm probably not seeing something, but wouldn't we be able to just move 
the widgets from zope.app.form into zope.formlib? The non-test 
dependencies of zope.app.form don't look that bad.

> zope.testbrowser
> 
> This package offers functional browser tests and consequently needs a
> way to set up a ZODB and publisher with some default application
> configuration. I don't see how this can be achieved without depending
> on a specific application environment like zope.app.appsetup or
> Zope2/App. Zope2 depends on the package and it makes sense to include
> it on the application server level - but not on a toolkit level for
> building frameworks.
> 
> ACTION: I'd suggest to drop this package from the ZTK.

If there are multiple frameworks that use this (and there are, Zope 2, 
Grok, Zope 3 apps),
shouldn't just drop it. We could move it into the 'under review' status 
or something.

Regards,

Martijn