Chris Withers wrote:
> Jamie Heilman wrote:
> >2.2 because 2.1 lacks ruthless efficiency.
> That, on its own, is not a very helpful statement ;-)
> What are the differences between 2.1 and 2.2 that you care about?
2.2 is installed on my machines, 2.1 isn't. It might work in 2.1 for
all I know, but I'm not going to bother back-patch it even if it is
possible, I'm simply not interested in supporting old versions of
Python. (and no, I don't run Zope 2.6.x)
> >The stock OFS/Cache.py is
> >insecure, and lacking features I want, thus, I rewrote it and included
> >patches to adapt the existing managers to the improved API. There is
> >no third thing.
> Have you got a collector issue / Fishbowl proposal anywhere that is
> looking to get this accepted? What reasons could people have for not
> liking this new Cache.py?
Yes, No, Read the collector issue.
> >$ # screw with the headers to lib/python/OFS/Cache.py to replace \
> > ZopeCorp's eyesore of a copyright preamble
> With what? This kind of comment is a bit inflamatory and not at all
> helpful :-(
I'm just saying don't forget to add the preamble if you do check it in
over the old library. (my Cache.py doesn't have it) Or don't. I
don't care either way.
Jamie Heilman http://audible.transient.net/~jamie/
"It's almost impossible to overestimate the unimportance of most things."
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -