Dieter Maurer schrieb:
Christian Theune wrote at 2008-2-4 13:23 +0100:
+        # agroszer: 2008.feb.1.: currently the above seems not to be true
+        # request will KEEP the response on close()
+        # even more if a retry occurs in the publisher,
+        # the response will be LOST, so we must accept the returned request
+        request = publish(request)
+        return request.response.getResult()
Same comment as previously, please avoid this style of annotation.

I disagree with you.

Commenting difficult code passages which can easily be seen
as overly complex if one does not look carefully is a *very* good

Especially in this case, I find the explanation vital why
"response" is recomputed rather than the already known "response" used.

I haven't been clear enough about what I meant with `style of annotation`.

IMHO this issue should have a bug number. The bug number should be annotated instead of a name and a date, stating the issue in short and making it possible to lookup discussion and proceeding of this bug in the tracker.

Also, it doesn't look like the issue is actually finally resolved as you say `seems`.

Better specify explicitely when one is not absolute sure.

That's what bugtracking is for.

SVN tracks who edited what and when, the statement of your name and the change date isn't necessary.

But when one looks at the code, it is not easy to find out which SVN revision produced this code -- unless you look through the complete

svn (praise|blame) tells you by whom and in which revision a line of code was changed last time.


gocept gmbh & co. kg - forsterstrasse 29 - 06112 halle (saale) - germany
www.gocept.com - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - phone +49 345 122 9889 7 -
fax +49 345 122 9889 1 - zope and plone consulting and development
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to