Andreas Jung wrote:
Chris wants to backport it to 2.7 x; I'm opposed. Your call.
If it does not change the default behaviour we have in 2.7.5... why not...
Cool, thanks, I'll look at merging for 2.7.6 :-)
cheers,
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting
-
--On Mittwoch, 6. April 2005 10:16 Uhr +0100 Chris Withers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is really up to
Andreas whether or not to accept such a change on the 2.7 line.
Andreas, whatcha think?
Sorry, I have to catch up with this thread. I thought the problem was
solved by
Tres new
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On Mittwoch, 6. April 2005 10:16 Uhr +0100 Chris Withers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is really up to
Andreas whether or not to accept such a change on the 2.7 line.
Andreas, whatcha think?
Sorry, I have to
--On Mittwoch, 6. April 2005 9:32 Uhr -0400 Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Chris wants to backport it to 2.7 x; I'm opposed. Your call.
If it does not change the default behaviour we have in 2.7.5... why not...
Andreas
pgp7uZ3q8EeTC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hi Tres,
We really need to follow a deprecation-style model here: the risk of
breaking major third party components is pretty high.
Agreed. I see you started working on this, thanks!
Since this is a bug, and it looks like it's going to be fixed with a
config option, would anyone mind if I ported
Chris Withers wrote:
Florent Guillaume wrote:
Ok, thanks a lot to Tres for having gone ahead and done that. I just
merged his branch. All 5645 tests pass (man, with Zope 3 included that's
way more than before!)
Did you check with Tres that his branc hwas ready to merge? ;-)
Yes.
Florent
--
Florent
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Withers wrote:
We really need to follow a deprecation-style model here: the risk of
breaking major third party components is pretty high.
Agreed. I see you started working on this, thanks!
Since this is a bug, and it looks like it's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Florent Guillaume wrote:
Florent Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unauthorized in getObject is out of the question, that would be new
behaviour.
Well, in 2.8, new behaviour is expected, right?
I really passionately believe that we should not
Max M wrote at 2005-3-31 14:48 +0200:
...
Most of my queries, where I need to wake up objects, has the form::
brains = catalog(portal_type='Document')
objects = []
for brain in brains:
try:
obj = brain.getObject()
if not obj is None:
Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is everyone ok with returning
- the object if it can be accessed
- raise Unauthorized if it can't be accessed
- raise NotFound if it's not there
and never return None ?
I'll change that before tomorrow, for 2.8a2.
(I'll change NotFound
Chris Withers wrote:
Well, in 2.8, new behaviour is expected, right?
I really passionately believe that we should not be returnining None in
Zope 2.8, and since 2.8 hasn't quite hit beta yet I'm very keen to see
it fixed asap.
Any objections?
Most of my queries, where I need to wake up objects,
11 matches
Mail list logo
