[Zope-dev] Re: OFS.Application deprecations for Zope 2.10

2006-06-15 Thread yuppie
Hi Chris! Chris McDonough wrote: For what it's worth, maybe there's some middle ground here. Just because something is deprecated doesn't need it needs to have a hard date to be removed. Why don't we just have the first use of zLOG in each module generate a deprecation warning and just

Re: [Zope-dev] Re: OFS.Application deprecations for Zope 2.10

2006-06-14 Thread Chris Withers
Chris McDonough wrote: So be it. This is really minor. Not deprecating it is the right thing, and I won't even qualify that with a IMO ;-) +1 Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk

Re: [Zope-dev] Re: OFS.Application deprecations for Zope 2.10

2006-06-14 Thread Dieter Maurer
Florent Guillaume wrote at 2006-6-13 22:13 +0200: ... Yes but the deprecation has been there for a while, and the third party product developers have been ignoring the warning. Their loss. Interestingly, it is usually not the loss for the third party product developers (as they usually gain

Re: [Zope-dev] Re: OFS.Application deprecations for Zope 2.10

2006-06-14 Thread Florent Guillaume
On 14 Jun 2006, at 22:06, Dieter Maurer wrote: Florent Guillaume wrote at 2006-6-13 22:13 +0200: Yes but the deprecation has been there for a while, and the third party product developers have been ignoring the warning. Their loss. Interestingly, it is usually not the loss for the third party

Re: [Zope-dev] Re: OFS.Application deprecations for Zope 2.10

2006-06-13 Thread Chris Withers
Chris McDonough wrote: view, but this wouldn't work for non-URL lookups. So people who use 'methods' now will need to monkeypatch in hideous ways just like the 'methods' stuff does now, in which case why not leave it? Am I right as reading this as someone else who feels why are we

[Zope-dev] Re: OFS.Application deprecations for Zope 2.10

2006-06-13 Thread Florent Guillaume
Chris Withers wrote: Chris McDonough wrote: view, but this wouldn't work for non-URL lookups. So people who use 'methods' now will need to monkeypatch in hideous ways just like the 'methods' stuff does now, in which case why not leave it? Am I right as reading this as someone else who feels

Re: [Zope-dev] Re: OFS.Application deprecations for Zope 2.10

2006-06-13 Thread Florent Guillaume
On 14 Jun 2006, at 00:45, Chris McDonough wrote: On Jun 13, 2006, at 4:13 PM, Florent Guillaume wrote: Yes but the deprecation has been there for a while, and the third party product developers have been ignoring the warning. Their loss. You're right. This only because I haven't managed to

Re: [Zope-dev] Re: OFS.Application deprecations for Zope 2.10

2006-06-13 Thread Chris McDonough
FWIW I patched EE's trunk on svn.zope.org. Thanks. Or we can just pretend we never deprecated 'methods', remove the warning, and get on with it; no harm, no foul. Then the framework never gets cleaned up. So be it. This is really minor. Not deprecating it is the right thing, and I

[Zope-dev] Re: OFS.Application deprecations for Zope 2.10

2006-06-12 Thread Chris McDonough
Right, sorry. I've been out of the loop. I haven't been keeping up with the latest goings on. FWIW, I recently needed to emulate this machinery for Basket so I can sympathize with wanting to make it saner, but I question the wisdom of deprecating 'methods'. IMHO, we should ignore the

Re: [Zope-dev] Re: OFS.Application deprecations for Zope 2.10

2006-06-12 Thread Chris McDonough
I should note that the same rationale does not really apply to '__ac_permissions__' and 'meta_types'; what these do can be done in registerClass, so the deprecation warning isn't lying for those... - C On Jun 12, 2006, at 9:09 AM, Chris McDonough wrote: Right, sorry. I've been out of the