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
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
> 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.
Clark Consulting & Research
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@zope.org
See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests