[Mailman3-dev] PyProtocols vs. Zope Interfaces

[Barry Warsaw]

On Sun, 2004-04-04 at 11:44, Michael Kato wrote:

>    I too like the Zope3's new way of specifying "implements".  Does 
> zope3's interface still have the packaging issue of being too big and 
> zope dependant?  

I'm not sure.  I need to re-capture current Zope3's interface package
and see what the dependencies are.  I've been discouraged by Zope3 page
template dependencies.  The last time I capture them I found that we had
to pull in the following subpackages:

zope.tal
zope.tales
zope.pagetemplates

(okay, those make sense :)

zope.interface
zope.i18n

(those make sense too)

zope.i18nmessageid

(I suppose, but that was a new one)

zope.schema

(huh?)

I mentioned this to a few other ZC folks last week and certainly the
zope.schema dependency was a surprise.  Maybe that's just a bug.

> If so, we could talk to the PEAK/pyprotocols people 
> and see if they can implement the new zope way, or even implement this 
> ourselves.(into pyprotocols and give it back)

+1

>    I've-always-wanted-to-muck-with-metaclasses-ly yours,

Ultimately I'd love to see a PEP 246 implementation in Python proper,
but I'm sure that's at least several major releases away, if ever.  So,
I'll send Phillip a message about the new Zope idioms and see if he
thinks that would make sense for PyProtocols.

-Barry