On 15/09/2011 07:11, Chris McDonough wrote:
zope.registry also currently provides a minor API in the way of an
adapts decorator. This could (and should) be moved back into
zope.component; it's actually not used internally by zope.registry now
(although some decoy imports would make you think
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 00:57 -0400, Chris McDonough wrote:
I mentioned previously that it's not that much of a stretch to put this
code into zope.interface because zope.interface.adapter already defines
registry-ish stuff that possesses most of the same concepts as a
component registry.
* Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com [2011-09-06 20:06]:
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 12:50 +0200, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
* Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com [2011-09-01 04:27]:
It wouldn't be the end of the world to have the global registry and the
global API live in zope.registry, but it
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 09:01 +0200, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
* Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com [2011-09-06 20:06]:
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 12:50 +0200, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
* Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com [2011-09-01 04:27]:
It wouldn't be the end of the world to have the global
* Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com [2011-09-08 05:21]:
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 09:01 +0200, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
Yes, I like the idea of a fresh start (or at least proper clean
up) quite a bit. And I'd definitely be up for writing (new)
documentation. You've set a great example in that
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 13:39 +0200, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
* Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com [2011-09-08 05:21]:
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 09:01 +0200, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
Yes, I like the idea of a fresh start (or at least proper clean
up) quite a bit. And I'd definitely be up for
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 19:03 -0400, Chris McDonough wrote:
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 13:39 +0200, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
* Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com [2011-09-08 05:21]:
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 09:01 +0200, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
Yes, I like the idea of a fresh start (or at least
* Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com [2011-09-01 04:27]:
It wouldn't be the end of the world to have the global registry and the
global API live in zope.registry, but it doesn't help Pyramid for it to
be in there, and it probably wouldn't help anyone else either. The
global API (which includes
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 12:50 +0200, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
* Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com [2011-09-01 04:27]:
It wouldn't be the end of the world to have the global registry and the
global API live in zope.registry, but it doesn't help Pyramid for it to
be in there, and it probably
* Jim Fulton j...@zope.com [2011-08-30 09:25]:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 2:23 AM, Wolfgang Schnerring w...@gocept.com wrote:
My understanding is that from a client's perspective these two are
equivalent: if you want the foo functionality for zope.component, you
have to depend on
* Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com [2011-08-30 03:51]:
On Tue, 2011-08-30 at 08:47 +0200, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
My interpretation of your suggestion is that maybe that zope.component
end up as what zope.registry is now. But I don't think preserving the
name zope.component for this small
On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 09:15 +0200, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
* Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com [2011-08-30 03:51]:
On Tue, 2011-08-30 at 08:47 +0200, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
My interpretation of your suggestion is that maybe that zope.component
end up as what zope.registry is now. But
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com wrote:
...
- zope.testing (for addCleanUp of the global registry in
z.c.globalregistry and other places)
This particular detail should simply be cleaned up by
moving these calls into tests module.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton
On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 09:22 -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com wrote:
...
- zope.testing (for addCleanUp of the global registry in
z.c.globalregistry and other places)
This particular detail should simply be cleaned up by
moving
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com wrote:
On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 09:22 -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com wrote:
...
- zope.testing (for addCleanUp of the global registry in
z.c.globalregistry and other
* Jim Fulton j...@zope.com [2011-08-26 07:35]:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Wolfgang Schnerring w...@gocept.com wrote:
* Jim Fulton j...@zope.com [2011-08-25 15:24]:
stripping zope.component to its core would be backwards incompatible now.
Why? zope.component already uses
* Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com [2011-08-26 13:27]:
So I'd like to propose to do the split the other way around: Not
extract the core into something else and leave only a hollowed-out
shell of integration and miscellany stuff behind, but rather tighten
zope.component to its core and
Hello Charlie,
* Charlie Clark charlie.cl...@clark-consulting.eu [2011-08-26 11:17]:
Am 26.08.2011, 09:51 Uhr, schrieb Wolfgang Schnerring w...@gocept.com:
However, what's important to me is that we try to make packages
cohesive, and that we try to make integration between packages
On Tue, 2011-08-30 at 08:47 +0200, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
* Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com [2011-08-26 13:27]:
So I'd like to propose to do the split the other way around: Not
extract the core into something else and leave only a hollowed-out
shell of integration and miscellany
* Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com [2011-08-30 03:51]:
If there's some solution that doesn't break bw compat but gets what
you're after, I couldn't possibly be opposed to it. But I don't see how
it can happen without some backwards incompatibility, even if that
backwards incompatibility is
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 2:23 AM, Wolfgang Schnerring w...@gocept.com wrote:
* Jim Fulton j...@zope.com [2011-08-26 07:35]:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Wolfgang Schnerring w...@gocept.com wrote:
* Jim Fulton j...@zope.com [2011-08-25 15:24]:
stripping zope.component to its core would be
* Jim Fulton j...@zope.com [2011-08-25 15:24]:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Wolfgang Schnerring w...@gocept.com wrote:
So I'd like to propose to do the split the other way around: Not
extract the core into something else and leave only a hollowed-out
shell of integration and miscellany
Am 26.08.2011, 09:51 Uhr, schrieb Wolfgang Schnerring w...@gocept.com:
However, what's important to me is that we try to make packages
cohesive, and that we try to make integration between packages
understandable.
The current zope.component, because it came out of the Zope3 monolith,
Regarding Withers suggestion - should we be looking to move these
libraries to the WSGI namespace? Or are there real use cases outside the
web world?
I use zope.component outside of web related development. I don't
really care what namespace it is
in, but zope.component/zope.interface are
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Wolfgang Schnerring w...@gocept.com wrote:
* Jim Fulton j...@zope.com [2011-08-25 15:24]:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Wolfgang Schnerring w...@gocept.com wrote:
So I'd like to propose to do the split the other way around: Not
extract the core into
On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 08:50 +0200, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
However, I feel that this extraction of the registry bits is a little
too mechanical, and I'd like us to think a little bit about
alternative approaches before we commit this.
I envision the ZTK packages (like zope.component) to
On 26/08/2011 02:17, Charlie Clark wrote:
Regarding Withers suggestion - should we be looking to move these
libraries to the WSGI namespace? Or are there real use cases outside the
web world?
As with Tim, I use both of these libraries plenty of the time outside of
web work...
cheers,
Chris
Hello,
* Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com [2011-08-16 22:50]:
The focus of the 2011 Pyramid GSoC project has been to port crucial
Pyramid dependencies to Python3. At the end of this year's US PyCon,
Lennart Regebro labelled[1] zope.component as high-hanging fruit,
due to the following
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Wolfgang Schnerring w...@gocept.com wrote:
...
So I'd like to propose to do the split the other way around: Not
extract the core into something else and leave only a hollowed-out
shell of integration and miscellany stuff behind, but rather tighten
On 25/08/2011 06:24, Jim Fulton wrote:
Maybe something like zope.plugins would be better. When I try
to explain zope.component to people, I often explain it as a good
generic plugin mechanism.
If we're renaming, we could also consider dropping the zope bit.
I never will understand the
Hello,
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 22:50:42 -0400 you wrote:
- - Merge the 'jbohman-zope.registry' branch of zope.component to the
trunk, and bump its minor version accordingly.
That sounds to me to rather have a *major* version number bump.
--
Best regards,
Adam GROSZER
--
Quote of the day:
Hi,
On 17 August 2011 03:50, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
- - Land 'zope.registry' as a full ZTK package, with its own Launchpad
artifacts, etc. This step may also involve moving bugs from
zope.component to zope.registry.
This is not a major issue, but just be aware that
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Adam GROSZER agros...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 22:50:42 -0400 you wrote:
- - Merge the 'jbohman-zope.registry' branch of zope.component to the
trunk, and bump its minor version accordingly.
Great work, +1 on merging (I trust the GSoC mentor did
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/17/2011 02:12 AM, Adam GROSZER wrote:
Hello,
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 22:50:42 -0400 you wrote:
- - Merge the 'jbohman-zope.registry' branch of zope.component to
the trunk, and bump its minor version accordingly.
That sounds to me to
34 matches
Mail list logo
