[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.

More information about the Product-Developers mailing list