On Thursday 15 April 2004 17:11, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Anyway, I guess the tokenizer is
fine too, and might even be faster for all I know, just seems an
unfortunate duplication of work, plus I checked in importchecker for
little reason. :)
No, Fred was just a bit faster than me with
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 11:46:27AM +0200, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
| - The packages in z can be used for more than just Zope
|
| +2
So, here's an idea:
- Move component-architecture packages out of 'zope' into 'ca', and
then we don't have the 'zope' vs 'Zope'
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 08:59:44AM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
| So, what about this:
|
| zope.component
| zope.interfaces (?)
| zope.configuration
| zope.testing
| zope.schema (soon-to-be-dead?)
|
| - All move to 'ca.*'
|
| Most of this has nothing to do with the component architecture.
|
| ca
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 08:59:44AM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
| So, what about this:
|
| zope.component
| zope.interfaces (?)
| zope.configuration
| zope.testing
| zope.schema (soon-to-be-dead?)
|
| - All move to 'ca.*'
|
| Most of this has nothing to do with the component
On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 09:25, Jim Fulton wrote:
From the zope package README.txt:
Zope Project Packages
The zope package is a pure namespace package holding packages developed as
part of the Zope 3 project.
Generally, the immediate subpackages of the zope package should be
Lennart Regebro wrote:
From: Sidnei da Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Move component-architecture packages out of 'zope' into 'ca', and
then we don't have the 'zope' vs 'Zope' issue anymore.
'ca' feels weird. Canada? caca? I don't like it. 'z' is better then. Of
course that means that suddenly the
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 09:25, Jim Fulton wrote:
From the zope package README.txt:
Zope Project Packages
The zope package is a pure namespace package holding packages developed as
part of the Zope 3 project.
Generally, the immediate subpackages of the zope package
On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 10:23, Jim Fulton wrote:
Each separately distributed package will have a DEPENDENCIES.cfg that is
created by hand and that *constrains* dependencies on other packages. It
makes explicit the intended dependencies. Dependencies not listed here
are bugs. Adding depenencies
On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 11:39, Casey Duncan wrote:
Additionally (and Jim and I have discussed this amongst ourselves) I
feel strongly that the dependancies should be enforced by tests.
Good point.
The dependancy tests might need to be separate from unittests because
they would probably
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 15 April 2004 11:39, Casey Duncan wrote:
Additionally (and Jim and I have discussed this amongst ourselves) I
feel strongly that the dependancies should be enforced by tests. That
is, if you introduce and errant dependancy (by adding an import to a new
package
On Thursday 15 April 2004 13:22, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Note that for checking dependencies in Python code I still think this
tool could be improved by using technology from importchecker.py
http://cvs.zope.org/Zope3/utilities/importchecker.py
which can use Python's compiler module to lift
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 15 April 2004 13:22, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Note that for checking dependencies in Python code I still think this
tool could be improved by using technology from importchecker.py
http://cvs.zope.org/Zope3/utilities/importchecker.py
which can use Python's
12 matches
Mail list logo
