Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> [snip]
> > Right. Here's what we could do:
> >
> > 1. Copy Five's interface definitions over to Zope 2.8 (mostly to
> > OFS.interfaces, I guess) where they are added as Zope 2 interfaces
> >
> > 2. Keep Five's (redudant) interface definitions. They can stay at their
> > status quo (status Zope 2.7, that is).
> >
> > 3. Add <five:bridge /> calls for every interface so that Five's
> > interfaces are automatically kept up-to-date with the Zope 2.8 ones. The
> > bridges would override the ones defined in the module, potentially
> > updating with newer definitions. The only thing that we need to take
> > care of is fallback for Zope 2.7 where the Zope 2 interfaces don't exist
> > yet.
> So you would have the Zope 2.8 interfaces exist in the Five.interfaces
> module?

Well, no. Five.interfaces would stay as it is; it seems to be pretty accurate
for Zope 2.7 (especially with yuppie's fixes, which should be merged to the
Five-1.0 branch, btw).

Some interfaces were added to Zope 2.8 and it would make sense to manage all of
them in the Zope tree for the future, not the Five tree. However, when run
within Zope 2.8, we want Five.interfaces to be most accurate, so we would
install bridges in Zope 2.8 that bridge the Zope 2.8 interfaces to
Five.interfaces. At least that was yuppie's latest idea andI think it's

> If not, we do have a compatibility problem.

I don't think we will.


P.S.: In case you're wondering why I haven't done any work on the Five wrt
testing/i18n: My hard drive had a head crash, the laptop is in for repair :(

This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Zope-Dev maillist  -
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to