Re: Re: zope.testbrowser packaging

+1

Also, extras is a miss-feature.

Jim

On Sep 15, 2007, at 10:43 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:

> Benji York wrote:
>> I have a small issue with zope.testbrowser packaging I'd like to  
>> get some input on.  If I were to have started the project today,  
>> it would likely have been zc.testbrowser, which would have no Zope  
>> 3 dependencies (or functionality) and zc.testbrowser.zope, which  
>> would have, and depended on zc.testbrowser.  Well, that didn't  
>> happen, but there are parallels to the current situation that  
>> might be informative.
>> There is a configuration bug in testbrowser that means that unless  
>> you include the "test" extra, you won't get the Zope 3  
>> dependencies.  I suspect most people either include that extra, or  
>> accidentally include the dependencies through other packages.  I  
>> have two ideas for fixing this:
>> 1) introduce a "zope" extra that everyone will have to use  
>> (basically just rename "test" to "zope";
>> 2) take a lesson from the fictional zc.testbrowser and introduce  
>> another package (zope.testbrowser.zope) that contains the Zope 3  
>> bits and depends on zope.testbrowser.
>
> I think this would be very hard if not impossible to do from a  
> packaging perspective (declaring zope.testbrowser a namespace  
> package *and* have it contain things like README, configure.zcml,  
> etc.).
>
>> I think I prefer the second, despite it's strange appearance.   
>> Thoughts?
>
> Let's look at this from the beginning. zope.testbrowser contains
>
> a) a reusable, completely Zope-independent test browser
>
> b) integration with zope.app.testing.functional, in other words a test
>    browser for testing web applications based on zope.publisher.
>
> I think in its current use, zope.testbrowser is *mostly* used as  
> b). When used as a), I don't think anybody is bothered by the fact  
> that it might or might not have more dependencies (other than the  
> inconvenience of having to install more stuff than actually  
> necessary).
>
> So here's what I suggest: Factor out a) to a new package  
> 'zc.testbrowser' (or whatever) and make 'zope.testbrowser', the  
> remaining b), depend on zc.testbrowser, zope.app.testing and all  
> that other stuff properly.
>
> That way
>
> - packaging and nomenclature are straight-forward,
>
> - we don't have to break backwards compatibility anywhere,
>
> - people who have used 'zope.testbrowser' because of a) until now  
> won't experience any problems, even though we should probably tell  
> them to switch to zc.testbrowser.
>
>
>
> -- 
> http://worldcookery.com -- Professional Zope documentation and  
> training
> _______________________________________________
> Zope3-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/jim%40zope.com
>

--
Jim Fulton			mailto:[email protected]		Python Powered!
CTO 				(540) 361-1714			http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation	http://www.zope.com		http://www.zope.org