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 ma
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 r
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 [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 "prop
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 13:39 +0200, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
> * Chris McDonough [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 writ
* Chris McDonough [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 regard
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 09:01 +0200, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
> * Chris McDonough [2011-09-06 20:06]:
> > On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 12:50 +0200, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
> > > * Chris McDonough [2011-09-01 04:27]:
> > > > It wouldn't be the end of the world to have the global registry and the
> > >
* Chris McDonough [2011-09-06 20:06]:
> On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 12:50 +0200, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
> > * Chris McDonough [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
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 12:50 +0200, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
> * Chris McDonough [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 he
* Chris McDonough [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 getSiteManage
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 09:22 -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
>> ...
>> > - zope.testing (for addCleanUp of the global registry in
>> > z.c.globalregistry and other places)
>>
>> This partic
On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 09:22 -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Chris McDonough 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
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Chris McDonough 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
http://www.linkedin.com/in
On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 09:15 +0200, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
> * Chris McDonough [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
* Chris McDonough [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 core an
* Jim Fulton [2011-08-30 09:25]:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 2:23 AM, Wolfgang Schnerring 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 zope.component[foo], and you import
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 2:23 AM, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
> * Jim Fulton [2011-08-26 07:35]:
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
>> > * Jim Fulton [2011-08-25 15:24]:
>> > > stripping zope.component to its core would be backwards incompatible now.
>> >
>> > Why? zop
* Chris McDonough [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 the requirement
On Tue, 2011-08-30 at 08:47 +0200, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
> * Chris McDonough [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 behi
Hello Charlie,
* Charlie Clark [2011-08-26 11:17]:
> Am 26.08.2011, 09:51 Uhr, schrieb Wolfgang Schnerring :
> > However, what's important to me is that we try to make packages
> > cohesive, and that we try to make integration between packages
> > understandable.
>
> I think that what you suggest
* Chris McDonough [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 move the opt
* Jim Fulton [2011-08-26 07:35]:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
> > * Jim Fulton [2011-08-25 15:24]:
> > > stripping zope.component to its core would be backwards incompatible now.
> >
> > Why? zope.component already uses extras_require to signify the various
> > i
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,
Chri
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)
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
> * Jim Fulton [2011-08-25 15:24]:
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Wolfgang Schnerring 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-ou
>
> 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 ar
Am 26.08.2011, 09:51 Uhr, schrieb Wolfgang Schnerring :
> 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,
> contains integrati
* Jim Fulton [2011-08-25 15:24]:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Wolfgang Schnerring 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
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
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Wolfgang Schnerring 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
> zope.component to its cor
Hello,
* Tres Seaver [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 factors::
>
> - "magi
-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 m
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Adam GROSZER 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 a good code
Hi,
On 17 August 2011 03:50, Tres Seaver 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 there's a
widely-used pa
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:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rationale
-
The focus of the 2011 Pyramid GSoC project has been to port crucial
Pyramid dependencies to Python3:
https://github.com/Pylons/pyramid/wiki/Python-3-Porting
At the end of this year's US PyCon, Lennart Regebro labelled[1]
zope.c
35 matches
Mail list logo
