Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> On 12 Oct 2006, at 17:57, Charlie Clark wrote:
>>> Am 10.10.2006, 23:35 Uhr, schrieb Paul Winkler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>> If you fail to use -k, the zope test runner will delete bytecode for all
>>>> your products - including mxODBCZopeDA, which has no .py files to fall
>>>> back on.  Ouch. I'll investigate further - there might be a bug to file
>>>> against zope.testing.
>>> For development purposes of this nature you might drop mxODBCZopeDA in
>>> your SOFTWARE_HOME rather than INSTANCE_HOME which should protect.
> Since I've come against this myself, I'd really like to know a single
> sane reason to ship just pyc files. Don't get me wrong, I like the
> product and will recommend it all day long, but shipping just pyc files
> is odd. Not only gives it a queasy feeling of "well, I guess they really
> don't trust their paying customers", it also legally prevents me from
> creating patches to help you guys because that would imply I ran one of
> the easily-available code decompilers against those Python modules. Even
> regardless of the ease with which pyc files can be reconstituted into
> readable Python.
> I just couldn't come up with one good reason.

Just shipping the .pyc files has a few advantages:

* you can be sure that the customer hasn't modified the
  product and thus support requests are easier to

* the customer won't run into issues with the .pyc
  and .py files getting out of sync (e.g. due to
  permissions of the .py and .pyc files being
  different), making upgrades a lot easier for
  the customer

OTOH, if you want to help us make the product better, then we
should talk :-)

Marc-Andre Lemburg

Professional Python Services directly from the Source  (#1, Oct 13 2006)
>>> Python/Zope Consulting and Support ...
>>> mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ...   
>>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ...

::: Try mxODBC.Zope.DA for Windows,Linux,Solaris,FreeBSD for free ! ::::
Zope-DB mailing list

Reply via email to