The following supporters have open issues assigned to them in this collector
(http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF).
Assigned and Open
mhammond
- "Windows DevelopmentMode penalty in CMFCore.DirectoryView",
[Accepted] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/366
Pending / Deferred Issues
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6 Jan 2007, at 23:03, Martin Aspeli wrote:
In light of what we're seeing here, and because there is *so* much
third party code using getToolByName(), perhaps a
DeprecationWarning (and worse, speedy deprecation) is a bit
premature? I don't th
Summary of messages to the cmf-tests list.
Period Sat Jan 6 12:00:00 2007 UTC to Sun Jan 7 12:00:00 2007 UTC.
There were 9 messages: 9 from CMF Unit Tests.
Test failures
-
Subject: FAILED (failures=1) : CMF-1.5 Zope-2.8 Python-2.3.6 : Linux
From: CMF Unit Tests
Date: Sat Jan 6 21:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6 Jan 2007, at 23:03, Martin Aspeli wrote:
In light of what we're seeing here, and because there is *so* much
third party code using getToolByName(), perhaps a
DeprecationWarning (and worse, speedy deprecation) is a bit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7 Jan 2007, at 14:26, Martin Aspeli wrote:
I'm getting a bit annoyed that things already decided back in
September are now being questioned. Please go back and read the
thread "Tools as local utilities", which you started,
coincidentally.
Am 07.01.2007 um 14:26 schrieb Martin Aspeli:
However, surely, if we agree that it's premature to do so,
commenting out the line that sends a DeprecationWarning won't be
much of a change?
That's just plain silly! The warning is the best way of informing
developers: "explicit is better th
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>
> On 7 Jan 2007, at 14:26, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>
>> I didn't realise we would fully deprecate getToolByName() quite yet,
>> though. I must admit I haven't been following your checkins, for lack
>> of time (and since you're surely more qualified than me in this work
>> in
Hi Jens,
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> - I'll be happy to mark those places in the code where I had to
> manually wrap after a straight getUtility/queryUtility call so these
> places stand out as a reminder to do something about it.
I haven't marked those places yet, but attached you can find a patch
a
Martin Aspeli wrote at 2007-1-6 22:06 +:
>Hanno Schlichting wrote:
>
>> The idea is to use a specialized persistent component registry, that
>> does the needed AQ-wrapping.
>>
>> This will however only give us AQ-wrapped local utilities, whereas those
>> registered with the global component re
Martin Aspeli wrote at 2007-1-6 22:22 +:
>
> - Registering the portal as a utility that can be obtained by
>getUtility(IPortalRoot) is pretty good practice; in my estimation, that
>should solve all the use cases for utilities where acquisition is used
>now and where we're not really af
Charlie Clark wrote:
Am 07.01.2007 um 14:26 schrieb Martin Aspeli:
However, surely, if we agree that it's premature to do so,
commenting out the line that sends a DeprecationWarning won't be
much of a change?
That's just plain silly! The warning is the best way of informing
developers: "
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7 Jan 2007, at 23:09, Martin Aspeli wrote:
I fully agree with this (going ahead with the work), it's just a
question of whether we want to fill people's error logs with
warnings or not. Perhaps we could start off at a lower error level
for a
Dieter Maurer wrote:
> Martin Aspeli wrote at 2007-1-6 22:22 +:
>>
>> - Registering the portal as a utility that can be obtained by
>> getUtility(IPortalRoot) is pretty good practice; in my estimation, that
>> should solve all the use cases for utilities where acquisition is used
>> no
Hi Jens,
A warning is a warning is a warning, there's no lower level, and
people won't see anything if it isn't in their faces. The usage of
something like a debug error message is unprecedented,
counterintuitive and will not compel anyone to fix their product. We
finally have a _workable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7 Jan 2007, at 23:45, Martin Aspeli wrote:
A warning is of course one thing. If getToolByName() is gone
entirely in a year (I don't know if that was your intention or not)
it's pretty scary. Surely, some things deserve longer deprecation
per
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Maybe a compromise would be to only return those utilities back
acquisition wrapped that where registered as tools?
That sounds sensible to me; most "new" local utilities wouldn't really
behave the same way, I'm guessing.
Jens added a new function to CMFCore.utils
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7 Jan 2007, at 23:45, Martin Aspeli wrote:
A warning is of course one thing. If getToolByName() is gone
entirely in a year (I don't know if that was your intention or not)
it's pretty scary. Surely, some things deserve l
Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>>
>> Let's talk about something fun instead, like that wrapping issue. I
>> personally can't see any problem with Hanno's suggestion for a
>> "special" component registry and automatically wrapping those tools
>> that are in the little registry. I'm
18 matches
Mail list logo
