[Product-Developers] Re: Re: Re: unit test on Plone 4.0b1

Derek Broughton derek at pointerstop.ca
Sat Mar 20 17:08:58 UTC 2010


Wichert Akkerman wrote:

> On 3/20/10 15:33 , Derek Broughton wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for this discussion - I'm loathe to even test Plone4 at the moment
>> because I don't know enough about this sort of change.
>>
>> Surely, though, dependencies on something like CMFCore should be
>> fulfilled by declaring the dependency on Plone.
> 
> They are, but you should never rely on that: Plone might be modified to
> not use CMFCore anymore itself, and your package would suddenly break.
> For Plone and CMFCore that is not very likely short term, but in general
> you should never rely on indirect dependencies. They *will* hurt you at
> some point.

Ah, but I rather look at it the opposite way - I _should_ rely on indirect 
dependencies for something like CMFCore, because I only use it as required 
in Plone.  If plone was to drop that dependency and use something else 
(specifically this _did_ happen with CMFCore Permissions - at least the 
module moved), I _want_ my product to break and require me to fix my code.  
The absolutely last thing I want is for my code to continue to import 
something that will only be used by my own products while everybody else is 
doing something different.
-- 
derek





More information about the Product-Developers mailing list