On 9 April 2010 21:30, Hanno Schlichting ha...@hannosch.eu wrote:
Sure. I think the approach we took was good. It gave as a hugely
successful, stable and performant engine. I just have the feeling that
the current model has become somewhat convoluted and hinders us to do
any more
On 27 February 2010 12:10, Uli Fouquet u...@gnufix.de wrote:
While trying to make megrok.chameleon compatible with zopetoolkit and
groktoolkit package versions, I noticed that latest z3c.pt (1.1.0) and
trunk are not completely compatible with Chameleon = 1.1.0. The tests
fail.
Do you think
Hi there,
Malthe Borch wrote:
On 27 February 2010 12:10, Uli Fouquet u...@gnufix.de wrote:
While trying to make megrok.chameleon compatible with zopetoolkit and
groktoolkit package versions, I noticed that latest z3c.pt (1.1.0) and
trunk are not completely compatible with Chameleon =
I'm sure I'm speaking out of turn here, but what good is it to rely on the
composition of generated source code? It would be a true shame if Chameleon
internals became APIs.
On 3/1/10 10:47 AM, Uli Fouquet wrote:
Hi there,
Malthe Borch wrote:
On 27 February 2010 12:10, Uli
