Julien Anguenot wrote:
It won't change the fact that the ZODB hooks can't be controlled at
registration time if they are registred by different layers of the
architecture. (not all necessarly based on Zope which could provides the
hook manager (or whatever) ok maybe ...)
If the different subsys
Florent Guillaume wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
I don't understand why keeping the order paremeter is such a big deal ?
Because it clutters the ZODB API with something that is, fundamentally
application policy.
Ok seen that way I agree. That's not the ZODB's job to decide what kind
of API is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Florent Guillaume wrote:
> Jim Fulton wrote:
>
>>> I don't understand why keeping the order paremeter is such a big deal ?
>>
>>
>> Because it clutters the ZODB API with something that is, fundamentally
>> application policy.
>
>
> Ok seen that way
Jim Fulton wrote:
I don't understand why keeping the order paremeter is such a big deal ?
Because it clutters the ZODB API with something that is, fundamentally
application policy.
Ok seen that way I agree. That's not the ZODB's job to decide what kind of
API is provided to enforce policy.
Just back from vacation...
Jeremy Hylton wrote:
On 8/22/05, Tim Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jim still wonders, and he got me wondering too, whether the `order=` gimmick
is really needed. For example, you could have gotten to the same end here
with the old method, by registering your ac
