On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 03:47, Richard Jones wrote: > On Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:40, Casey Duncan wrote: > > I agree, monkey patches are perfect for this. That > > makes them totally transparent to the application and > > Zope for that matter. There's nothing wrong with them > > in the right application. > > My main concern is the use of monkeypatching in the core makes it difficult > for someone else to release a product that also MPs without them worrying > about whether something has already patched code. Especially when we're > talking about MP'ing so many core Zope objects (yes, I count >1 as "so many" > :)
I agree - altering classes at runtime is less predictable or discoverable than defining them statically. I think the current solution is really nice, but I don't see that it has any particular benefits over a static implementation, which has the benefit of following a standard, well-known pattern. > I think the performance hit is really quite minimal for two if statements at > the entry and exit point(s) of a function to turn the behaviour on and off. Yes - I would bet the performace difference is in the order of hundredths of a second. seb _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
