Hash: SHA1

On 7 Jan 2007, at 23:09, Martin Aspeli wrote:
I fully agree with this (going ahead with the work), it's just a question of whether we want to fill people's error logs with warnings or not. Perhaps we could start off at a lower error level for a version or two?

A warning is a warning is a warning, there's no lower level, and people won't see anything if it isn't in their faces. The usage of something like a debug error message is unprecedented, counterintuitive and will not compel anyone to fix their product. We finally have a _workable_ deprecation policy with accepted ways to signal deprecation and accepted deprecation periods, I'm against creating special precedents for no other reason other than to give anyone, be it Plone users or third party coders or anyone else, a _false_ sense of security.

Changing every use of getToolByName() in every product out there (especially Plone's third party products, of which there are hundreds) is an enormous (and fairly daunting) task. If every request gets four or five of those messages, it will be counter- productive, swamping the logs.

The task isn't rocket science, it's just dull work. I know that because I've spent a long time doing it on that branch. Besides, a deprecation warning will only show up once for every specific call if I remember correctly.

Keep in mind that the only tools which will cause the DeprecationWarning to show are those defined in the CMF package. No third-party "portal_foobar" tool would cause it.

Similarly, if we did remove it too soon, the breakage would be enormous. Probably so much so that Plone would need to monkey patch it back.

I completely agree that the "new way" is better. I just think we need to be pragmatic about how strongly we warn that there is a new way, and how quickly we remove the old way.

If you consider the relatively glacial speed of CMF releases you'll see there's nothing "quick" when the normal policy of removal two releases down the line is applied. The earliest time getToolByName could possible go away would be 2.3, and I strongly doubt it will happen then. We will warn people that it *might* happen, though.

I do appreciate your desire to be conservative, but it's a bit hard to understand when I hear so many voices from the upper echelon of Plone developers wanting to completely revamp (for very good reasons) large parts of it.


Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org

See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests

Reply via email to