On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Dan Korostelev <nad...@gmail.com> wrote:

Okay, reuse of directive definitions and implementations is more
widespread than I thought initially. Which is silly of me, as Grok
itself also reuses directive actions (but not definitions) in some

>> But of course placing a few imports for backwards compatibility is not a
>> lot of work and may be the easiest way out of this set of questions. :)
> Yep. Also, as I said before I think we also need to use deprecation
> warnings for imports that are not classes for persistent objects
> (until Chiristian writes the tool to upgrade them :)).

As far as I understand in a recent discussion people indicated they
didn't like deprecation warnings anywhere, as they are forced on third
party users of code that itself isn't deprecating anything. Since
Christian's tool is as I take it well underway couldn't we just rely
on this? Also since it actually *fixes* the state of a ZODB, instead
of just giving a lot of warnings and then leaving the helpless
developer with writing some scary custom upgrade code.


Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to