Re: [Zope-dev] MonkeyPatching in the Core (was: Zope 2.6 planning)

2002-03-05 Thread Toby Dickenson
On Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:20:58 -0500, Brian Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can attest that the only thing worse than confusing code is _invisible_ code. The main page of the Control_Panel already displays a fairly long list of name/value pairs describing the state of the zope installation:

Re: [Zope-dev] MonkeyPatching in the Core (was: Zope 2.6 planning)

2002-03-05 Thread Adrian Hungate
] To: Brian Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: seb bacon [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Richard Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Casey Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Anthony Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 11:00 AM Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] MonkeyPatching

Re: [Zope-dev] MonkeyPatching in the Core (was: Zope 2.6 planning)

2002-03-05 Thread Casey Duncan
On Monday 04 March 2002 06:41 pm, Anthony Baxter allegedly wrote: Brian Lloyd wrote Think of this as consentual monkey-patching (hmm... may have to change this metaphor soon!). Call it gorilla-patching - it's like monkey-patching.[1] I think particularly promiscuous monkey patches

RE: [Zope-dev] MonkeyPatching in the Core (was: Zope 2.6 planning)

2002-03-04 Thread Brian Lloyd
Indeed. However, I was being a bit glib with my example, and didn't explain my point properly: that performance issues should be subordinate to good design. Therefore, I suspect MonkeyPatching is bad: Pros - a tiny performance gain Cons - unpredictable interaction with future products;

Re: [Zope-dev] MonkeyPatching in the Core (was: Zope 2.6 planning)

2002-03-04 Thread seb bacon
What if, instead of the static list of callable info that the CP currently uses, Zope objects could register themselves as profilable? We would then make sure that the object types that CP handles now register themselves, but other products that we don't know (or have to know) about

Re: [Zope-dev] MonkeyPatching in the Core (was: Zope 2.6 planning)

2002-03-04 Thread Matthew T. Kromer
With respect to the overhead of inserting things into modules in the source code, Fred Drake (I think!) pointed out to me that constructs in the form if __debug__: ... are automatically removed by the parser when Python is run with the -O flag. Note that I am *not* sure how Zope performs

Re: [Zope-dev] MonkeyPatching in the Core (was: Zope 2.6 planning)

2002-03-04 Thread Richard Jones
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002 07:20, Brian Lloyd wrote: Seb wrote: Pros - a tiny performance gain Cons - unpredictable interaction with future products; not a well-known method of distributing products; not easily discoverable What if, instead of the static list of callable info that the CP

Re: [Zope-dev] MonkeyPatching in the Core (was: Zope 2.6 planning)

2002-03-04 Thread Anthony Baxter
Brian Lloyd wrote What if, instead of the static list of callable info that the CP currently uses, Zope objects could register themselves as profilable? We would then make sure that the object types that CP handles now register themselves, but other products that we don't know (or have