2009/2/6 Martijn Faassen <faas...@startifact.com>:
>> 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.

I don't think there was a consensus about that.

For ZODB objects I think its okay for now not to use deprecations and
to use the upgrade tool, but for the imports of other things that were
moved elsewhere, I still think we need to bug developers that they
need to upgrade their code with deprecation warnings, so we can
eventually remove old imports. Oh, and BTW, if we use the "zodb fix
tool", it's also okay to raise deprecation warnings about ZODB
objects, as it's really easy to fix with the magic tool and again, we
can eventually remove the deprecated import and make our code more

Let's discuss it once again :)

WBR, Dan Korostelev
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