Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: Zope 3 as a reliable platform?!?
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: That is unfortunate example of obviously bad deprecation. Deprecation is hard and it requires a great deal of thought. But it can be manageable in many cases. Still feels like there's too much fo it happening in the Zope 3 world. I refuse to believe that all the Zope 3 developers are that bad that they get it wrong in ways which need deprecating so often ;-) Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: Zope 3 as a reliable platform?!?
Dieter Maurer wrote: But you probably would not prefer if these straight-forward APIs were continously changing. I prefer a slightly suboptimal stable API over one that is optimized in each version in a non backward compatible way. EXACTLY! I do see the gain of moving out general purpose functions from zope.app into zope. But, I would do it in a backward compatible way -- even when zope.app then contains quite a few trivial packages redirecting to the relocated packages. Also true... Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: Zope 3 as a reliable platform?!?
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: tests. We *did* have changes that generated deprecation warnings. But that's something else. Not really, that for me is a non-backwards-compatible change, 'cos it requires me to rethink and recode, if not now then at some point in the future... being, just pointing to the zope packages via deferred imports. Of course, the deferred imports generate deprecation warnings when executed. Why? Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: Zope 3 as a reliable platform?!?
Chris Withers wrote: Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: That is unfortunate example of obviously bad deprecation. Deprecation is hard and it requires a great deal of thought. But it can be manageable in many cases. Still feels like there's too much fo it happening in the Zope 3 world. I refuse to believe that all the Zope 3 developers are that bad that they get it wrong in ways which need deprecating so often ;-) I think there are many things that we didn't get right the first time, or even the second time. Jim always says that when you don't really understand things, you tend to overengineer them. I think that's what happened a lot of the times. Zope 3 was pioneer land and we needed time to understand how it works best. Nearly all of the large refactorings that Zope 3 had in the last couple of years were major simplifications, such as a flatter package structure, an easier Component Architecture, an easier local Component Architecture, a simpler approach to skinning, etc. I think if the API conservatism gets too high, we'll end up with something like Zope 2 again and its unmanageable constructs like the one you presented earlier in this thread. We'll need to find the right balance. ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: Zope 3 as a reliable platform?!?
Chris Withers wrote: Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: tests. We *did* have changes that generated deprecation warnings. But that's something else. Not really, that for me is a non-backwards-compatible change, 'cos it requires me to rethink and recode, if not now then at some point in the future... being, just pointing to the zope packages via deferred imports. Of course, the deferred imports generate deprecation warnings when executed. Why? Because they'll go away. Why? Because it's clutter. And because there should preferrably be only one way to do things. If we left all the old ways around indefinitely, we'd have code that uses two or more ways of doing the same thing all over the place. It would set bad examples, to begin with. Theuni was recently very confused about the difference between three different APIs that do exactly the same thing (registering a utility). If we had deprecated at least the most confusing one of them (ztapi) already, it would probably have been much clearer. Philipp ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: Zope 3 as a reliable platform?!?
Why? Because they'll go away. Why? Because it's clutter. And because there should preferrably be only one way to do things. If we left all the old ways around indefinitely, we'd have code that uses two or more ways of doing the same thing all over the place. It would set bad examples, to begin with. +1 I'm not a zope3 core developer, just a zope3 newbie and one of the things that's annoyed me the most is the confusing feeling I get that there are different ways to apparently do the same thing. Kill kill kill all the duplicates! -- Peter Bengtsson, work www.fry-it.com home www.peterbe.com hobby www.issuetrackerproduct.com ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: Zope 3 as a reliable platform?!?
Tuesday, September 5, 2006, 1:27:12 PM, you wrote: Hello! I was interessted in Zope3 at the early beginning, at still revisit it each half a year! But... tests. We *did* have changes that generated deprecation warnings. But that's something else. Not really, that for me is a non-backwards-compatible change, 'cos it requires me to rethink and recode, if not now then at some point in the future... Me too! That's a real problem for me too! Each time I revisit Zope3, it has changed very dramaticly! Old code, I wrote for learning Zope3 didn't work at all, I have do relearn Zope3 for new! And I realy don't know, what I would think, if I had Zope3 in use on a productiv system? Schould I really change all packages each half a year to reflect changes in Zope3? Don't get me wronge, Zope3 is realy great, it has many good ideas, a clean design, IMHO it is the best application server out there. But it still changes to much to be usefull for smaller companies, or even people like me, for someone just want to use it for hobby! I would not consider the API as stable! Two much changes! Shure, they all make things better, but it isn't stable! Sorry! Just my two cents! Bye Marcus -- Nothing is illegal until you get caught. LARP-Welt, das LARP-Portal: http://www.larp-welt.de/ Coloful-Sky, meine kleine Drachenseite: http://www.colorful-sky.de/ ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: registerUtility(component, interface) vs provideUtility(interface, component) vs provideUtility(component, interface)
On Sep 2, 2006, at 5:33 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: The order of arguments is the same. I think Jim wants the convenience functions in zope.component (provide*) to go away in favor of the explicit spelling through the global site manager. I think that before we do that, we should first abolish the term site manager from the zope.component API (because we don't call it site manager anymore). Yup. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org Zope Corporationhttp://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: Zope 3 as a reliable platform?!?
Marcus J. Ertl wrote: tests. We *did* have changes that generated deprecation warnings. But that's something else. Not really, that for me is a non-backwards-compatible change, 'cos it requires me to rethink and recode, if not now then at some point in the future... Me too! That's a real problem for me too! Each time I revisit Zope3, it has changed very dramaticly! Old code, I wrote for learning Zope3 didn't work at all, I have do relearn Zope3 for new! I think you're over-dramatizing. Nearly all of the code in the example application of my book still works with Zope 3.2, so it can't be that bad. And I realy don't know, what I would think, if I had Zope3 in use on a productiv system? Schould I really change all packages each half a year to reflect changes in Zope3? No, only if you want to upgrade to newer Zope versions. And even then you have a year, not half a year, to upgrade. This deprecation period was voted on once and I think it's a good compromise. Don't get me wronge, Zope3 is realy great, it has many good ideas, a clean design, IMHO it is the best application server out there. But it still changes to much to be usefull for smaller companies, or even people like me, for someone just want to use it for hobby! I would not consider the API as stable! Two much changes! Shure, they all make things better, but it isn't stable! Wow, that's a lot of exclamation marks. You make it sound like we change every single bit of Zope 3 in every release. We all know that's not the case. Applications that use Zope 3 components such as Plone 2.5, for example, work both with Zope X3 3.0 packages and Zope 3.2 packages. So again, it can't be that bad. Philipp ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: registerUtility(component, interface) vs provideUtility(interface, component) vs provideUtility(component, interface)
On Tuesday 05 September 2006 07:55, Jim Fulton wrote: On Sep 2, 2006, at 5:33 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: The order of arguments is the same. I think Jim wants the convenience functions in zope.component (provide*) to go away in favor of the explicit spelling through the global site manager. I think that before we do that, we should first abolish the term site manager from the zope.component API (because we don't call it site manager anymore). Yup. Since we are at it, I would love to have z3c.baseregistry in the core for Zope 3.4. Jim, I would like you to review it It is a pretty small package, so it should not take long. As a side note: I noticed the difficulty of writing about the components registry or just components. I think this is somewhat facilitated by the fact that the module is called *registry.py and the classes *Components. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: Zope 3 as a reliable platform?!?
On Sep 2, 2006, at 1:03 PM, Tres Seaver wrote: Insulating non-core developers from this kind of churn is what the façade module 'zapi' was orignally for. That isn't my recollection. zapi was introduced as an experiment to make imports simpler. This was done in the days when we used contxt wrappers heavily and there were a whole lot of context-wrapper related APIs that had to be used. When we got rid of the context wrappers, there were fw methods in zapi that were used anymore. Most of those were the component APIs and getting those from zope.component rather than ztapi made the code less Zope dependent, which was a good thing. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org Zope Corporationhttp://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: registerUtility(component, interface) vs provideUtility(interface, component) vs provideUtility(component, interface)
Stephan Richter wrote: On Tuesday 05 September 2006 07:55, Jim Fulton wrote: On Sep 2, 2006, at 5:33 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: The order of arguments is the same. I think Jim wants the convenience functions in zope.component (provide*) to go away in favor of the explicit spelling through the global site manager. I think that before we do that, we should first abolish the term site manager from the zope.component API (because we don't call it site manager anymore). Yup. Since we are at it, I would love to have z3c.baseregistry in the core for Zope 3.4. Jim, I would like you to review it It is a pretty small package, so it should not take long. +1 As a side note: I noticed the difficulty of writing about the components registry or just components. I think this is somewhat facilitated by the fact that the module is called *registry.py and the classes *Components. Yeah, I was never a big fan of that nomenclature. I think the fact that a components is a singular/plural combination is confusing. I don't remember whether or not I told Jim that at PyCON, though. I refer to these things as component registries in my new book, even though IComponentRegistry is just one half of IComponents (the other half is IComponentLookup). But what good is a registry if you can't do lookup things from it ;). Philipp ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: Zope 3 as a reliable platform?!?
On Sep 5, 2006, at 5:21 AM, Chris Withers wrote: I refuse to believe that all the Zope 3 developers are that bad that they get it wrong in ways which need deprecating so often ;-) I don't think it's a matter of being bad. It's a matter of learning from experience. We broke a lot of new ground in Zope 3 and often got things wrong because we hadn't done them before. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org Zope Corporationhttp://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Zope 3 as a reliable platform?!?
On Tuesday 05 September 2006 08:26, Jim Fulton wrote: I think in the future, we should resist minor api tweaks just to improve spelling slightly. I disagree, if the API violates the style guide. The point of the style guide is that we have uniform naming. For example, formlib violates the style guide completely. Unfortunately I did not look closer at it before the inclusion in the core, otherwise I would have strongly argued against it until those violations were fixed. I cannot remember things well. So uniform naming is very important to me, because it allows me to remember less. Every time I am starting to write UI code, I have to think: Okay. I am going to use formlib. Crap, it is different than the rest. I need to use underscores. Okay. At the end of the day, I am ending up opening form.py to look up things; yes, I have not read the README yet. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: Zope 3 as a reliable platform?!?
Tuesday, September 5, 2006, 2:06:09 PM, you wrote: Hello, Marcus J. Ertl wrote: I think you're over-dramatizing. Nearly all of the code in the example application of my book still works with Zope 3.2, so it can't be that bad. Hmm, for the simple things, it's still good, right. But much of the trickier things, not mentioned in the book, aren't that good! Perhabs it's silly me, forgetting to much of what I have learned before? But each version of Zope I try give me the feeling of starting from a new! No, only if you want to upgrade to newer Zope versions. I think of upgrading as a must on public reachable systems, because of security fixes. Maybe there are no at the moment, but when they come, upgrades must go fast and smooth. Without recoding. Wow, that's a lot of exclamation marks. Oh, sorry! Don't want do call out loud! You make it sound like we change every single bit of Zope 3 in every release. We all know that's not the case. Applications that use Zope 3 components such as Plone 2.5, for example, work both with Zope X3 3.0 packages and Zope 3.2 packages. So again, it can't be that bad. Then, I must have done something wrong. But if I look at the changelogs, all the ZCML-Changes, and API changes, it can't be that few. If I want to get on a state without any deprecation warnings, I have more to do then I like. It's very good to see, Zope3 ist developing, but now it's time, to get it stable too! Perhabs I'm not the right audience for Zope3? I'm working for a small company, doing the web stuff is just an unimportant part of my work. So each change I have to do is one to much. I would even love to use Zope for my privat homepage. But it's hobby, there's not much time to do even small changes. For larger environments (like Lexware) this may be no problem, there is time and money for incooperating changes in homemade packages. Bye Marcus -- Cat, n.: Lapwarmer with built-in buzzer. LARP-Welt, das LARP-Portal: http://www.larp-welt.de/ Coloful-Sky, meine kleine Drachenseite: http://www.colorful-sky.de/ ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Static apidoc
On Sunday 03 September 2006 12:47, Florian Lindner wrote: We tried the wget method first. wget is just not smart enough. Were you able to figure out what exactly is the problem with wget? There is not just one. As far as I remember, forget wget. Don't waste your time, but spend it in fixing the existing script by debugging it. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Zope 3 as a reliable platform?!?
On Sep 5, 2006, at 8:36 AM, Stephan Richter wrote: On Tuesday 05 September 2006 08:26, Jim Fulton wrote: I think in the future, we should resist minor api tweaks just to improve spelling slightly. I disagree, OK, we disagree. if the API violates the style guide. The point of the style guide is that we have uniform naming. For example, formlib violates the style guide completely. Unfortunately I did not look closer at it before the inclusion in the core, otherwise I would have strongly argued against it until those violations were fixed. I cannot remember things well. So uniform naming is very important to me, because it allows me to remember less. Every time I am starting to write UI code, I have to think: Okay. I am going to use formlib. Crap, it is different than the rest. I need to use underscores. Okay. At the end of the day, I am ending up opening form.py to look up things; yes, I have not read the README yet. On the subject of the style guide, I think that, given that Python has adopted the underscore-naming scheme, we should do the same. Just as with Python, it would *not* be necessary to conform existing APIs to a new style. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org Zope Corporationhttp://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Zope 3 as a reliable platform?!?
On 9/5/06, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On the subject of the style guide, I think that, given that Python has adopted the underscore-naming scheme, we should do the same. Just as with Python, it would *not* be necessary to conform existing APIs to a new style. Hmm. The Z3 style guide has never matched the Python style guide completely, and I think it would do more damage than good to change it. We adopted some things early on in Z3 development that I think helped, but changing it just because more is covered in the Python style guide seems arbitrary. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr.fdrake at gmail.com Every sin is the result of a collaboration. --Lucius Annaeus Seneca ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] buildbot failure in Zope3 trunk 2.4 Windows 2000 zc-bbwin3
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope3 trunk 2.4 Windows 2000 zc-bbwin3. Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/ Build Reason: changes Build Source Stamp: 7413 Blamelist: ctheune,gintautasm,jim,jukart,shh BUILD FAILED: failed failed slave lost sincerely, -The Buildbot ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] buildbot failure in Zope3 trunk 2.4 Linux zc-buildbot
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope3 trunk 2.4 Linux zc-buildbot. Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/ Build Reason: changes Build Source Stamp: 7467 Blamelist: alga,andreasjung,flox,gintautasm,jim,jukart,mgedmin,oestermeier,poster,shh,srichter,tseaver BUILD FAILED: failed svn sincerely, -The Buildbot ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] buildbot failure in Zope3 branches 3.3 2.4 Windows 2000 zc-bbwin
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope3 branches 3.3 2.4 Windows 2000 zc-bbwin. Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/ Build Reason: changes Build Source Stamp: 7466 Blamelist: flox BUILD FAILED: failed svn sincerely, -The Buildbot ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Patching zope.testing
Hello folks,
I'd change slightly the output format of the log handler in
zope.testing.loggingsupport so that one is able to see *what*
went wrong when an exception is logged. For instance, rather
than getting just:
zope.app.generations ERROR
Failed to evolve database to generation 4 for app1
One would get:
zope.app.generations ERROR
Failed to evolve database to generation 4 for app1
Traceback (most recent call last):
...
ValueError: 4
Even though this is a simple change, it'll break a few tests in
the Zope 3 tree, and perhaps other projects using the same test
runner (is anyone else using it?).
With this in mind, and considering that I haven't been following
the development as closely as I should, I'd like to check with you
if it's ok to apply the change at this point to the trunk of
zope.testing and update the svn:external link of Zope3 trunk while
fixing the broken tests, or if there's another less disruptive way
of doing it.
The patch is the following one. Notice that in addition to introduce
backtraces, it'll also indent all lines to 2 spaces, rather than just
the first one (so that all of them are identified as pertaining to
the given log message).
Index: loggingsupport.py
===
--- loggingsupport.py (revision 69092)
+++ loggingsupport.py (working copy)
@@ -105,16 +105,16 @@
logger.removeHandler(self)
def __str__(self):
-return '\n'.join(
-[(%s %s\n %s %
- (record.name, record.levelname,
- '\n'.join([line
- for line in record.getMessage().split('\n')
- if line.strip()])
- )
- )
- for record in self.records]
- )
+lines = []
+for record in self.records:
+lines.append(%s %s % (record.name, record.levelname))
+for line in record.getMessage().split(\n):
+if line.strip():
+lines.append( +line)
+if record.exc_info and record.exc_info[0] and record.exc_text:
+for line in record.exc_text.split(\n):
+lines.append( +line)
+return '\n'.join(lines)
class InstalledHandler(Handler):
--
Gustavo Niemeyer
http://niemeyer.net
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Patching zope.testing
On 9/5/06, Gustavo Niemeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: runner (is anyone else using it?). We're certainly using the zope.testing framework for internal projects; I expect a number of projects would be affected. In thinking about this, it's not at all clear to me that this is the right thing to do. When checking logging output, what's really being checked is that a usable log entry is being made at the right level. If what you want is to test an exception, that seems to be a distinct test (IMO, of course). -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr.fdrake at gmail.com Every sin is the result of a collaboration. --Lucius Annaeus Seneca ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Patching zope.testing
On Sep 5, 2006, at 1:10 PM, Fred Drake wrote: On 9/5/06, Gustavo Niemeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: runner (is anyone else using it?). We're certainly using the zope.testing framework for internal projects; I expect a number of projects would be affected. In thinking about this, it's not at all clear to me that this is the right thing to do. When checking logging output, what's really being checked is that a usable log entry is being made at the right level. If what you want is to test an exception, that seems to be a distinct test (IMO, of course). I agree. zope.testing.loggingsupport is for testing logging, not for logging while testing. :) Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org Zope Corporationhttp://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Patching zope.testing
I agree. zope.testing.loggingsupport is for testing logging, not for logging while testing. :) Can you do one without the other? :-) Please check my answer to Fred. -- Gustavo Niemeyer http://niemeyer.net ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Patching zope.testing
I agree. zope.testing.loggingsupport is for testing logging, not for logging while testing. :) Can you do one without the other? :-) Please check my answer to Fred. -- Gustavo Niemeyer http://niemeyer.net ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Zope 3 as a reliable platform?!?
Stephan Richter wrote at 2006-9-5 08:36 -0400: On Tuesday 05 September 2006 08:26, Jim Fulton wrote: I think in the future, we should resist minor api tweaks just to improve spelling slightly. I disagree, if the API violates the style guide. If only after the API is in widespread use, a style guide violation has been noticed, then the violation cannot have been that severe. Otherwise, someone would have noticed it earlier. Often, style is a very personal matter. What some individuals feel as a violation may not worry other individuals. API changes should have the large part of the community in mind. -- Dieter ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Zope 3 as a reliable platform?!?
Fred Drake wrote at 2006-9-5 10:50 -0400: ... Hmm. The Z3 style guide has never matched the Python style guide completely, and I think it would do more damage than good to change it. We adopted some things early on in Z3 development that I think helped, but changing it just because more is covered in the Python style guide seems arbitrary. When I remember right, then I read an important sentence in the Python style guide -- something along the lines: This is a guide: you should follow it but there are occasions when you may not do so with good reasons. That's what a guide is: a set of rules recommended to follow, not a lawbook to follow in all cases. -- Dieter ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Zope 3 as a reliable platform?!?
On 9/5/06, Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When I remember right, then I read an important sentence in the Python style guide -- something along the lines: This is a guide: you should follow it but there are occasions when you may not do so with good reasons. I don't know if this means you agree or not. I don't think this paragraph really applies to this discussion. Jim suggested that we change the Z3 style guide, and I'm suggesting that that's counter-productive. Clearly, existing code isn't affected immediately, and APIs can't be changed anyway. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr.fdrake at gmail.com Every sin is the result of a collaboration. --Lucius Annaeus Seneca ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Zope 3 as a reliable platform?!?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Fred Drake wrote: On 9/5/06, Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When I remember right, then I read an important sentence in the Python style guide -- something along the lines: This is a guide: you should follow it but there are occasions when you may not do so with good reasons. I don't know if this means you agree or not. I don't think this paragraph really applies to this discussion. Jim suggested that we change the Z3 style guide, and I'm suggesting that I think this is an important point: that's counter-productive. Clearly, existing code isn't affected immediately, and APIs can't be changed anyway. But changing APIs is what we do, and what we probably have to do, and probably keep doing. However, I think, we need to get much more careful with it and maybe we can try harder keeping existing APIs around, although we find better ways to spell/implement/dress them. Christian - -- gocept gmbh co. kg - forsterstraße 29 - 06112 halle/saale - germany www.gocept.com - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - phone +49 345 122 9889 7 - fax +49 345 122 9889 1 - zope and plone consulting and development -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFE/cuhdUt9X/gknwIRAs2BAKDUOmJwPUtpeCmaZwba/hY32/HdcACgwH+N LXmTosSKo5BU+HkmdZK7H34= =m4s9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: Zope 3 as a reliable platform?!?
Fred Drake wrote: On 9/5/06, Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When I remember right, then I read an important sentence in the Python style guide -- something along the lines: This is a guide: you should follow it but there are occasions when you may not do so with good reasons. I don't know if this means you agree or not. I don't think this paragraph really applies to this discussion. Jim suggested that we change the Z3 style guide, and I'm suggesting that that's counter-productive. Clearly, existing code isn't affected immediately, and APIs can't be changed anyway. Jim suggested changing the style guide to match PEP008, but PEP008 also says that existing code should preferrably not be changed and that existing APIs should be kept consistent. So, in the end, a new style guide would only apply to new packages or new APIs, which are mostly outside of the Zope 3 core nowadays anyways. Philipp ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Zope 3 as a reliable platform?!?
Fred Drake wrote at 2006-9-5 15:03 -0400: On 9/5/06, Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When I remember right, then I read an important sentence in the Python style guide -- something along the lines: This is a guide: you should follow it but there are occasions when you may not do so with good reasons. I don't know if this means you agree or not. I agree that we do not need to adopt the Python style guide for Zope3 development. I don't think this paragraph really applies to this discussion. Jim suggested that we change the Z3 style guide, and I'm suggesting that that's counter-productive. But, if some component (such as formlib) entered the Z3 core and it follows more the Python style guide then the Z3 style guide, then this would not mean we have to change this component's API (just to get it more in line with the Z3 style guide). I think this openess was what Jim suggested (and I agree with) -- Dieter ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Zope 3 as a reliable platform?!?
On Tuesday 05 September 2006 15:03, Fred Drake wrote: On 9/5/06, Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When I remember right, then I read an important sentence in the Python style guide -- something along the lines: This is a guide: you should follow it but there are occasions when you may not do so with good reasons. I don't know if this means you agree or not. I don't think this paragraph really applies to this discussion. Jim suggested that we change the Z3 style guide, and I'm suggesting that that's counter-productive. Clearly, existing code isn't affected immediately, and APIs can't be changed anyway. BTW, we discussed this quiet heavily on #zope3-dev. I think at the end Jim and I agreed that the zope.* namespace should follow and keep following the current Zope 3 style guide. Other namespaces, such as zc, z3c, lovely, etc can choose their own style guide but must be consistent within the namespace. While Jim never acknowledged this final wording, I consider silent as consent. :-) Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: Zope 3 as a reliable platform?!?
On 9/5/06, Philipp von Weitershausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, in the end, a new style guide would only apply to new packages or new APIs, which are mostly outside of the Zope 3 core nowadays anyways. Yes; this I understand. My point was that there's no reason to change the Z3 style guide, even just for new code/packages. Sounds like that's what was agreed on in #zope3-dev as well, so we're ok. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr.fdrake at gmail.com Every sin is the result of a collaboration. --Lucius Annaeus Seneca ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
