Nicolas Lehuen wrote .. > 2006/2/2, Graham Dumpleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Note that up until now I hadn't even looked over how this new module > > importer was implemented. I knew it wasn't going to solve various of > the > > existing module importer problems and I knew it was actually going to > > introduce some new issues that would have to be worked around, but now > > that I have started to document these new issues for inclusion in my > > module importer issues list and when I see other possible problems like > > the above, I am really starting to wander if it is really a good idea > > letting this interim solution to module importing problems be released. > > > > Comments? > > > > Graham > > You know, Graham, I'm very frustrated about this because we decided > not to go any further on the module importer issue until we reach 3.3. > Hence, I have stopped any development on this level and kept the code > as is (i.e. in a working state), hoping that the 3.2 release would > come soon and that we would be able to move on quickly. > > More than six months later we're still at the same point and now > you're beginning to ask questions about the interim solution.
Actually, I raised the issues before a couple of times, so in my email I should really have said "I am really starting to wander AGAIN if it is really a good idea". One of the previous emails on this can be seen: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.mod-python.devel/1269 Back then I felt I had no real power to influence anything, or at least I was not part of any final decision making process. Bar your concession of dropping get_page(), there was no other comment by anyone else so to me it seemed there was no point me pursuing it further even though I still had the reservations I mentioned in the email at the time. > Anyway, I'd like to point out that I've been using this publisher in > various professional projects for months now without having any > problems. It's not like we are releasing something flaky. Which is why I hadn't bothered to look at the module importer part of it. I trusted you and that the code you added would work okay. Anyway, we are letting my comments get blow out of proportion now given that I have already acknowledged that my premise for my revived misgivings was bogus because I simply didn't read the code correctly. > The only > problem is that apache.import_module is still as crappy as ever and > that we don't have any grand unified theory of module importing that > would support both handlers and published modules. Actually I do believe I have a grand unified theory and I have working code for it was well. I simply gave up pushing it some time back because the initial discussions I started about it on the mailing list degenerated into a multitude of threads with everyone giving their own viewpoints, with many not really understanding what I was proposing and others not understanding why it had to be changed anyway. Thus I gave up and reverted to just documenting the issues I find on my web site. In time I will also add documentation for how my proposed changes and code actually address or don't address the issues I have documented. Until that is done, making any code available isn't going to help. Graham
