Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
yuppie wrote:
By the way, I've just merged in Five 1.0 into Zope 2.8 (which was a
significant amount of work, due to all kinds of copyright headers
being different).
Can't we use the same headers for Five 1.0 and Zope 2.8? Both
releases
Hi!
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
[snip]
-1. Such changes are not much acceptable *now*. 2.b2 will be released
this week and 2.8 final in about two weeks. Such changes should have
been proposed during alpha phase...but I am against such change in
this late release phase.
For Zope 2.8
yuppie wrote:
Proposed Solution
=
1.) Adding ZCML that bridges existing z2 interfaces into the
'interfaces' module of their package. [Zope 2.8.0]
+1
2.) Copying z3 interfaces from Five.interfaces to the 'interfaces'
module of the corresponding package. Marking those in Five as
Martijn Faassen wrote:
yuppie wrote:
[snip]
This way, all the work that remains for me is to merge in Five 1.0
into Zope 2.8.
My point is:
Doing that in a backward compatible way is impossible. So we have to
do it now or never.
That's true, but it's not that difficult to ask people to change
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
yuppie wrote:
Proposed Solution
=
[...]
3.) Doing the same for Zope 2.7 with monkey patching code. [Five 1.0+]
I assume here you mean patching in OFS.interfaces, webdav.interfaces etc...
Yes.
4.) Making interfaces.zcml point to the new locations.
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Yes. I still don't see where the need for incompatability is. Maybe I'm
just blind. Can someone explain?
I no longer see a problem. If we make sure the Five interfaces and those
in the Zope tree are the same, there are no incompatibilities.
yuppie wrote:
4.) Making interfaces.zcml point to the new locations. [Five 1.0+]
5.) Adding unit tests that verify interfaces and implementations.
[Zope 2.8.0]
IMHO that's yagni. We actually don't use interfaces that much for
verifying implementations anymore. I think their most common use in
yuppie wrote:
Yes. I still don't see where the need for incompatability is. Maybe
I'm just blind. Can someone explain?
I no longer see a problem. If we make sure the Five interfaces and those
in the Zope tree are the same, there are no incompatibilities.
By the way, I've just merged in Five 1.0
yuppie wrote:
By the way, I've just merged in Five 1.0 into Zope 2.8 (which was a
significant amount of work, due to all kinds of copyright headers
being different).
Can't we use the same headers for Five 1.0 and Zope 2.8? Both releases
are ZPL 2.1, aren't they? Are there other things you did
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
yuppie wrote:
4.) Making interfaces.zcml point to the new locations. [Five 1.0+]
5.) Adding unit tests that verify interfaces and implementations.
[Zope 2.8.0]
IMHO that's yagni. We actually don't use
Tres Seaver wrote:
Your unit test should exercise the whole API promised by an
implementation anyway, so often an explicit interface check is redudant
(of course, it can't hurt). verifyClass() per se isn't bad, it's in fact
a useful indicator, but having that it as a *sole* measure whether a
class
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Your unit test should exercise the whole API promised by an
implementation anyway, so often an explicit interface check is redudant
(of course, it can't hurt). verifyClass() per se isn't bad, it's in fact
a useful indicator, but having
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Can't we use the same headers for Five 1.0 and Zope 2.8? Both releases
are ZPL 2.1, aren't they? Are there other things you did have to change?
Yes, some other things like taking out the monkey.py module, and some
documentation differences.
I want to get the headers in
Martijn Faassen wrote:
yuppie wrote:
By the way, I've just merged in Five 1.0 into Zope 2.8 (which was a
significant amount of work, due to all kinds of copyright headers
being different).
Can't we use the same headers for Five 1.0 and Zope 2.8? Both releases
are ZPL 2.1, aren't they? Are there
14 matches
Mail list logo