On Dec 23, 2008, at 2:11 PM, Thomas Lotze wrote:
> Thomas Lotze <t...@gocept.com> schrieb:
>> Yes, and I think that we're talking about two steps here anyway. I'd
>> like to finish and release a version that uses BLists ASAP;
> Well, I think the switch to BLists is finished, so I'd be ready to
> merge it to the trunk after someone reviewed the changes. In
> particular, I'm not sure that wiring up and testing the database
> generation follows best practices.
OK. I'll give it a whirl sometime over the next couple of weeks, if
that's soon enough for you.
FWIW, I'd be strongly tempted to release *without* the generation
code, and leave it up to users to switch as they desire.
1) That's particularly pertinent for library bits like this because a
tree walker would have to walk over *all* attributes and __getitem__s
in order to find instances of things like a blist, which will
generally be hidden deep in application objects; or would have to use
an iteration protocol like the one that FileStorage provides.
2) Old instances (with lists, not blists) will still work fine with
the new code, and in fact should continue to work even with new apis
as long as the ordered dict apis use the list apis (like slices) to
manipulate the order.
3) How many people are really using the blist right now anyway in
Generation code is hard to test in the abstract.
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -