I did a five-minute skim of the checkin but hope to look a bit more
tomorrow. Hopefully Marius, Benji, Albertas, or someone else who has
actually done work on this package will take a look and chime in.
I did have one somewhat trivial thought. I generally prefer durations
and intervals expressed as datetime.timedeltas myself, because they
convey their meaning without having to look it up docs (is that number
value a number of seconds? milliseconds? minutes?). There might
even be a zcml built in for schema field for that; I believe I
remember that there is in ZConfig.
Also, some variety of doctest would be nice. Even when a package is
not using doctests, I add new tests as doctest unless there's a really
good reason not to.
In this case, it looks like you've made the code significantly more
robust, which has added some probably necessary complexity. The code
looks readable, but I recommend a maintainer-oriented overview/
introduction as a doctest, at the least. For instance, perhaps you
could think about documentation about the rationale for the approach
and about the dance that this code participates in (with the lock
files and all the possible SMTP error conditions and the code's
responses). Of course, even more friendly docs than that would be
nice, but I'm only asking for what I myself tend to give, unfortunately.
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -