[Zope-dev] Re: relocating Zope 2 core interfaces - a proposal
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 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. Did you tag Five when you merged? It would probably a good idea, that way continuous merging will be easier (since you can ... Yes, as I merged Five 1.0. :) Regards, Martijn ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: relocating Zope 2 core interfaces - a proposal
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 other things you did have to change? Yes, some other things like taking out the monkey.py module, and some documentation differences. Did you tag Five when you merged? It would probably a good idea, that way continuous merging will be easier (since you can ... I want to get the headers in synch inside Five eventually, just didn't want to do it for Five 1.0. Yeah, I woudln't mind using the ZC header (I'm personally not too fond of it in its contents, but the advantages outweigh the disadvantages). We could do such change on the trunk at least. Philipp ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: relocating Zope 2 core interfaces - a proposal
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 synch inside Five eventually, just didn't want to do it for Five 1.0. There is a lot of cruft in Zope 2.8. As long as the monkey patchs are disabled in Zope 2.8, I would not mind if they are shipped with 2.8. That would make it easier to update the Zope repository frequently. I'd been putting it off, and all this, especially Andreas' note, reminded me I should do it. If you can get your fixes checked into the Zope 2.8 trunk (as well as in the Five-1.0 branch) then we should be fine (assuming you can check into svn.zope.org? Otherwise just put it in the branch and I'll port it into Zope 2.8). Done. Five-1.0 and Zope trunk. Cheers, Yuppie ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: relocating Zope 2 core interfaces - a proposal
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 that it as a *sole* measure whether a >>> class fulfills an interface or not is not sufficient (plus, in many Zope >>> cases, verifyObject is better because attributes may only be initialized >>> in __init__). >>> >>> The point why I think it's YAGNI is that we know the Zope 2 >>> implementations do implement the interfaces. After all, I derived the >>> interfaces from the implementations by gutting out the code. And it's >>> unlikely they'll change (although I might be wrong on this one, in which >>> case you win :)). >> >> >> When writing "test-first", I often start with only the 'verifyClass' >> test, and an empty interface. Then as I flesh out the interface, the >> test fails, reminding me to add the method / attribute. Yes, you still >> need tests for the semantics, but the conformance test is still >> valuable, because it "tests the tests" (an extra safety belt). > > > Fair enough. Note the "extra": it shouldn't be your only one. Right. The time recently when it paid off was after PyCon, when the ZODB interfaces had been fleshed out. When the merging Five and Zope3 into Zope 2.8, one of the Zope3 classes had such a test, and blew up becuase the interface had previously been incomplete. Fixing it was easy, I think, but we would not have known about the problem without the conformance test. Tres. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: relocating Zope 2 core interfaces - a proposal
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 fulfills an interface or not is not sufficient (plus, in many Zope cases, verifyObject is better because attributes may only be initialized in __init__). The point why I think it's YAGNI is that we know the Zope 2 implementations do implement the interfaces. After all, I derived the interfaces from the implementations by gutting out the code. And it's unlikely they'll change (although I might be wrong on this one, in which case you win :)). When writing "test-first", I often start with only the 'verifyClass' test, and an empty interface. Then as I flesh out the interface, the test fails, reminding me to add the method / attribute. Yes, you still need tests for the semantics, but the conformance test is still valuable, because it "tests the tests" (an extra safety belt). Fair enough. Note the "extra": it shouldn't be your only one. Philipp ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: relocating Zope 2 core interfaces - a proposal
-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 interfaces that much for >>> verifying implementations anymore. I think their most common use in >>> Zope 3/Five is documentation, API/schema specification, and easier >>> spelling for security declarations. >> >> >> ??? >> >> Who is 'we'? > > > The Zope 3 developers. > >> How do you make sure documentation and specification are in sync with >> the implementation? AFAICT verifyClass() is quite useful for that. > > > 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 fulfills an interface or not is not sufficient (plus, in many Zope > cases, verifyObject is better because attributes may only be initialized > in __init__). > > The point why I think it's YAGNI is that we know the Zope 2 > implementations do implement the interfaces. After all, I derived the > interfaces from the implementations by gutting out the code. And it's > unlikely they'll change (although I might be wrong on this one, in which > case you win :)). When writing "test-first", I often start with only the 'verifyClass' test, and an empty interface. Then as I flesh out the interface, the test fails, reminding me to add the method / attribute. Yes, you still need tests for the semantics, but the conformance test is still valuable, because it "tests the tests" (an extra safety belt). Tres. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCe6AZ+gerLs4ltQ4RAhmqAJsHMI0T4V+p+RIcOBE4stCgxWBDgACfTAHG vrqWMXOBPVH98hheB4Ao0r8= =c00Z -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: relocating Zope 2 core interfaces - a proposal
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 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 synch inside Five eventually, just didn't want to do it for Five 1.0. Cool. I can imagine that it was quite dificult. By the way, I think we should have yuppie's r11978 in it (which means we need it on Five-1.0 branch and a Five 1.0.1 release, probably). Gee, I would do the merge myself my laptop wasn't broken. I'm on a Windoze machine right now on which I quickly installed Thunderbird to be at least a little communicative :). Sorry. I didn't think Martijn would merge in Five today. Please let me know if can help to put things straight. I'd been putting it off, and all this, especially Andreas' note, reminded me I should do it. If you can get your fixes checked into the Zope 2.8 trunk (as well as in the Five-1.0 branch) then we should be fine (assuming you can check into svn.zope.org? Otherwise just put it in the branch and I'll port it into Zope 2.8). Regards, Martijn ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: relocating Zope 2 core interfaces - a proposal
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 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 have to change? They're both ZPL 2.1, but the copyright statement is a different one. Bare Five is Copyright (c) Five contributors, code in the Zope repository is Copyright (c) Zope Corporation and contributors. Maybe we should just switch all of Five to the ZC header to make things easier? It wouldn't change much of legal impact, would it? Cool. I can imagine that it was quite dificult. By the way, I think we should have yuppie's r11978 in it (which means we need it on Five-1.0 branch and a Five 1.0.1 release, probably). Gee, I would do the merge myself my laptop wasn't broken. I'm on a Windoze machine right now on which I quickly installed Thunderbird to be at least a little communicative :). Sorry. I didn't think Martijn would merge in Five today. Please let me know if can help to put things straight. You just need to merge the revision to the Five-1.0 branch (using svn merge) and apply the diff (output of svn diff -r11977:11978) to the Zope repository (2.8 branch) using the Unix 'patch' program. Philipp ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: relocating Zope 2 core interfaces - a proposal
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 3/Five is documentation, API/schema specification, and easier spelling for security declarations. ??? Who is 'we'? The Zope 3 developers. How do you make sure documentation and specification are in sync with the implementation? AFAICT verifyClass() is quite useful for that. 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 fulfills an interface or not is not sufficient (plus, in many Zope cases, verifyObject is better because attributes may only be initialized in __init__). The point why I think it's YAGNI is that we know the Zope 2 implementations do implement the interfaces. After all, I derived the interfaces from the implementations by gutting out the code. And it's unlikely they'll change (although I might be wrong on this one, in which case you win :)). Philipp ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: relocating Zope 2 core interfaces - a proposal
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. 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 have to change? Cool. I can imagine that it was quite dificult. By the way, I think we should have yuppie's r11978 in it (which means we need it on Five-1.0 branch and a Five 1.0.1 release, probably). Gee, I would do the merge myself my laptop wasn't broken. I'm on a Windoze machine right now on which I quickly installed Thunderbird to be at least a little communicative :). Sorry. I didn't think Martijn would merge in Five today. Please let me know if can help to put things straight. Cheers, Yuppie ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: relocating Zope 2 core interfaces - a proposal
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. [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 3/Five is documentation, API/schema specification, and easier spelling for security declarations. ??? Who is 'we'? How do you make sure documentation and specification are in sync with the implementation? AFAICT verifyClass() is quite useful for that. Cheers, Yuppie ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: relocating Zope 2 core interfaces - a proposal
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 their ZCML files to point to new interfaces at some point in the future. I think the importance of doing the release on time weighs against any improvements in Five. Yes. I still don't see where the need for incompatability is. Maybe I'm just blind. Can someone explain? 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). Cool. I can imagine that it was quite dificult. By the way, I think we should have yuppie's r11978 in it (which means we need it on Five-1.0 branch and a Five 1.0.1 release, probably). Gee, I would do the merge myself my laptop wasn't broken. I'm on a Windoze machine right now on which I quickly installed Thunderbird to be at least a little communicative :). Philipp ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: relocating Zope 2 core interfaces - a proposal
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 2.7 backwards compatibility cruft. [Zope 2.8.0] +1 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... 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 3/Five is documentation, API/schema specification, and easier spelling for security declarations. Risks = I can't see a way to provide backwards compatibility for Products.Five.interfaces.*, but as explained above I'm hopeful this doesn't break many Five products. How and where would we be backward incompatible? I assume that Five.interfaces would remain where it is, since its definitions are needed for your point 3) above. Philipp ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: relocating Zope 2 core interfaces - a proposal
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 it is a low risk change and I can work on it within the next days. The problem was introduced by adding Five and the beta phase is for finding issues with new code and fixing them. That's a good point. Let's amend the plan and say we start executing this *after* Zope 2.8, possibly for Zope 2.9. I hope we can make that release cycle relatively short anyway, and driven by Five changes; this would be a good example of such. Jim may have bigger plans for deeper Zope 3 integration (such as merging the security system), but if that is going to take time then we could defer that until Zope 2.10. 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. Cheers, Yuppie ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
