-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Christian Theune wrote:
> On 11/25/2009 08:51 PM, Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
>> * 2009-11-25 19:35, Tres Seaver wrote:
> IFoo()
> IFoo(x)
> IFoo(x, y)
>>> You can't use an arbitrary number of positional arguments for the
>>> contexts, becaus
On 11/26/2009 10:48 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Thomas Lotze wrote:
>> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>
>>> Thomas Lotze wrote:
>>> [snip]
What about a simple and consistent API for all components including
utilities, adapters and multiadapters:
IFoo()
IFoo(x)
IFoo(x, y)
I
On 11/25/2009 08:51 PM, Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
> * 2009-11-25 19:35, Tres Seaver wrote:
IFoo()
IFoo(x)
IFoo(x, y)
>>
>> You can't use an arbitrary number of positional arguments for the
>> contexts, because we need to support the named / default cases too.
>
> I'm probably saying
Hi,
On 11/25/2009 02:35 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
> Chris McDonough wrote:
>>
>> I think it makes sense. If we can relax the "utility name must be a string"
>> restriction it would be the best solution I think.
>>
>> I'll see what I can do.
>
> I've decided to keep the components subclass which
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Thomas Lotze wrote:
> [snip]
>> Then let me suggest not changing the call signature of an interface at all
>> but only add one or a few new methods. Firstly, this will keep backwards
>> compatibility even with code that adapts a tuple, and secondly, it
>> allows us to impl
Thomas Lotze wrote:
[snip]
> Then let me suggest not changing the call signature of an interface at all
> but only add one or a few new methods. Firstly, this will keep backwards
> compatibility even with code that adapts a tuple, and secondly, it allows
> us to implement a simple and consistent AP
Shane Hathaway wrote:
[I talk about backwards compatibility issues with some proposed API changes,
but this modification doesn't have this issue]
> Here is an interface decorator I intend to try out soon. It adds
> convenient component lookup methods to a particular interface without
> requirin
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Leonardo Rochael Almeida
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 14:34, Benji York wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Matthew Wilkes
>>> I know it's probably a spurious use case, but what if I want to adapt a
>>> tuple?
>>
>> There could be an optional keyword a
2009/11/26 Martijn Faassen :
> Hey,
>
> Jan-Wijbrand Kolman wrote:
>> I'm about to work a bit on z3c.schema2json [1]. As has been briefly
>> discussed before (a while ago [2]), z3c. schema2json is so similar to
>> z3c.schema2xml [3] in what it does and how it does it, that I wonder
>> about merging
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:52 AM, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
>> If this bug did indeed exist in 3.4.1, we can backport the fix and do a
>> 3.4.x bug-fix release.
>
> Thanks a lot for help, that would really great. The question is, how do I find
> out (with my limited knowledge of zope.security) if
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 14:34, Benji York wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Matthew Wilkes
> wrote:
>>
>> On 2009-11-25, at 1601, Benji York wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure I like the following suggestion better than the above, but
>>> throwing it out there anyway:
>>>
>>> Multiadapter:
>>>
>
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 4:57 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> That's not a fix, it just replaced one problem with another one: it is
> now impossible to get your full list of packages.
Indeed.
Once SourceForge is allowing logins again I suggest we discuss this
there.
I'll be suggesting that the re
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Matthew Wilkes
wrote:
>
> On 2009-11-25, at 1601, Benji York wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure I like the following suggestion better than the above, but
>> throwing it out there anyway:
>>
>> Multiadapter:
>>
>> IFoo((x,y))
>
> I know it's probably a spurious use case, bu
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Wed Nov 25 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Thu Nov 26 12:00:00 2009 UTC.
There were 6 messages: 6 from Zope Tests.
Tests passed OK
---
Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux
From: Zope Tests
Date: Wed Nov 25 20:38:30 EST 2009
URL: http://
Am Mittwoch 25 November 2009 13:07:58 schrieb Benji York:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
> > Ah, thanks that could be. My current version is zope.security-3.4.1 (as
> > from KGS-3.4.0).
> >
> > The real bad thing about this is that it seems I'm stuck with that
> > re
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> But someone needs to think of a feasible upgrade scenario. We could
> instrument all calls to IFoo and see whether a default argument is in
> use, but what then? I'd be hard to distinguish a default argument from
> one we're meant to adapt. I'd also be non-trivial to sca
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Thomas Lotze wrote:
>> You didn't explicitly mention the subject of backwards compatibility in
>> your original message, so let's make it explicit now: Is backwards
>> compatibility a goal in this discussion?
>
> True. It's indeed a goal, as I'd like to be able to use thi
On 2009-11-26 08:43, Michael Howitz wrote:
> Am 25.11.2009 um 15:49 schrieb Chris Withers:
> [...]
>> Yes, PyPI is broken if you're an admin of many packages, feel free to
>> "me too" on this issue:
>>
>> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2793544&group_id=66150&atid=513503
>
> It's fi
Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
> * On Nov 25, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Thomas Lotze wrote:
>>> What about a simple and consistent API for all components including
>>> utilities, adapters and multiadapters:
>>>
>>> IFoo()
>>> IFoo(x)
>>> IFoo(x, y)
>
> I quite like the simplicity of this spelling, so I want
Thomas Lotze wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>
>> Thomas Lotze wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> What about a simple and consistent API for all components including
>>> utilities, adapters and multiadapters:
>>>
>>> IFoo()
>>> IFoo(x)
>>> IFoo(x, y)
>> The last one won't work if we want to maintain backwards c
Hey,
Jan-Wijbrand Kolman wrote:
> I'm about to work a bit on z3c.schema2json [1]. As has been briefly
> discussed before (a while ago [2]), z3c. schema2json is so similar to
> z3c.schema2xml [3] in what it does and how it does it, that I wonder
> about merging the two packages somehow.
>
> One
21 matches
Mail list logo
