On Feb 11, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Paul McNett <[email protected]> wrote:
> The rationale is simply that we were loading way too many things upon someone
> issuing
> 'import dabo'. There's a class of users that use very specific things from the
> framework inside their web applications, such as only using the biz and data
> layer,
> but no dApp and no UI, or only using the report writer and nothing else.
> Rather than
> importing everything everyone would possibly need in 'import dabo', we should
> make
> things available via explicit import via subpackages.
I think the question is more accurately phrased "what harm was there in
importing those things?"
Do you see performance improvements? Lower memory requirements?
I thought that namespaces were managed by dicts, and that they were all
pointers to each other, so having, say, dabo.dApp defined doesn't take up any
significant memory over not adding it to the namespace.
-- Ed Leafe
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/dabo-users
Searchable Archives: http://leafe.com/archives/search/dabo-users
This message:
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/[email protected]
