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." -John Logue _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
