[Zope-dev] Re: relocating Zope 2 core interfaces - a proposal

2005-05-09 Thread Martijn Faassen
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

[Zope-dev] Re: relocating Zope 2 core interfaces - a proposal

2005-05-06 Thread yuppie
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

[Zope-dev] Re: relocating Zope 2 core interfaces - a proposal

2005-05-06 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
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

[Zope-dev] Re: relocating Zope 2 core interfaces - a proposal

2005-05-06 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
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

[Zope-dev] Re: relocating Zope 2 core interfaces - a proposal

2005-05-06 Thread yuppie
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.

[Zope-dev] Re: relocating Zope 2 core interfaces - a proposal

2005-05-06 Thread yuppie
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.

[Zope-dev] Re: relocating Zope 2 core interfaces - a proposal

2005-05-06 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
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

[Zope-dev] Re: relocating Zope 2 core interfaces - a proposal

2005-05-06 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
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

Re: [Zope-dev] Re: relocating Zope 2 core interfaces - a proposal

2005-05-06 Thread Martijn Faassen
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

[Zope-dev] Re: relocating Zope 2 core interfaces - a proposal

2005-05-06 Thread Tres Seaver
-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

[Zope-dev] Re: relocating Zope 2 core interfaces - a proposal

2005-05-06 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
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

[Zope-dev] Re: relocating Zope 2 core interfaces - a proposal

2005-05-06 Thread Tres Seaver
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

[Zope-dev] Re: relocating Zope 2 core interfaces - a proposal

2005-05-06 Thread yuppie
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

[Zope-dev] Re: relocating Zope 2 core interfaces - a proposal

2005-05-06 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
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