On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 28, 2008, at 11:05 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> > +1 - I already mentioned this option as well. Note that existing Zope
> > 3 applications can at least be made to run if you just let the
> > proxying code do nothing and return the object itself, I imagine.
> > They'll run insecurity, but they should run.
> I'd rather not have something like this checked in anywhere. I'd
> rather make it easier and more explicit to control whether proxies are
Sure, agreed that would be better.
> > Note that
> > zope.interface was already ported at least some distance by the
> > twisted people at Pycon.
> Interesting. Did anything get checked in to the z.o repo?
This I don't know about. Georgy should ask the Jython people, who seem
to know more. :)
> > I could therefore *imagine* focusing on some
> > speedup work by rewriting bits of code to Java, but I agree with you
> > that the primary, initial goal should be to get things to work, and
> > that performance work should be secondary. So perhaps this can be in
> > an 'optional-if-there-is-time-left' section, and going in with the
> > assumption that time will not be left.
> In particular, I'd prefer to see more of the stack get ported over
Yes, I think that's a good goal for the project for the forseeable
(this summer) future. I don't know how hard it is to port most of the
Python stack, but we will be finding out.
Georgy, a report on the things you run into while porting this stuff
over would also be *very* useful, so I suggest you make the production
of such a report part of your plan. Of course also needed is a list of
the packages you ported over, and perhaps the packages you didn't
manage to because of particular issues.
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -