Hiya yuppie,

Am 30.09.2011, 10:55 Uhr, schrieb yuppie <y.2...@wcm-solutions.de>:

> If you want to modernize SyndicationInformation, why do you still store
> DateTime objects in the database? (And why don't you use  
> zope.annotation?)

I think that when I started this I was initially trying to update the  
syndication stuff and practise writing tests by filling out the missing  
blanks. It then snowballed with my views work. You're right, of course,  
that having removing the ZMI interface to SyndicationInfo I've got more  
control over how stuff was stored. I need to revisit the zope.annotation  
docs but the last time I looked it didn't offer much.

> Quoting the docstring of schema.py: "SchemaAdapterBase and
> ProxyFieldProperty are legacy code. They should only be used to adapt
> old content types that can't handle unicode and datetime correctly."

What? You think I'm going to start reading the code? ;-) Having got Site  
Syndication licked I thought I could consolidate the view code. How wrong  
I was!

> AFAICS only the getUpdateBase method of ISyndicationTool needs to be
> backwards compatible. Everything else is new API or doesn't return
> DateTime objects. Wouldn't it be better to use datetime internally? You
> already need an upgrade step for SyndicationInformation. Writing an
> additional upgrade step for SyndicationTool wouldn't be much extra work.

Right. BTW. anyone know of an OFS implementation of os.walk? There used to  
be zwalk but I think it's disappeared behind the Google horizon.

Charlie Clark
Managing Director
Clark Consulting & Research
German Office
Helmholtzstr. 20
D- 40215
Tel: +49-211-600-3657
Mobile: +49-178-782-6226
Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@zope.org

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

Reply via email to