Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Jim Fulton wrote:
> [snip]
>> I'd rather leave zope.publsiher more or less alone, but develop a new  
>> thing that has the basic/core functionality we need and refactor  
>> zope.publisher to use that. 
> I had the impression Shane was doing that; i.e. building zope.pipeline 
> factoring bits out of the publisher but not really changing the 
> publisher very much itself, creating a new structure instead. Shane, is 
> that correct?

Yes.  I think Jim and I are saying the same thing there.  The current 
code in zope.pipeline doesn't reflect that thinking, though, because we 
really need to divide zope.publisher somehow before a project like this 
makes sense.

> +1 on the WebOb compatibility. I imagine it should be possible to 
> reconstruct our request and response interfaces on top of WebOb's. We 
> should also think of ways so that code can get the WebOb request 
> directly instead of having to go through these adapters. I'd also be 
> much in favor of reusing WebOb's implementation, not just the APIs. I 
> think it could help us replace part of the publisher.

That should be a great thing to work on in a sprint.

> Thanks. I'm very much in favor of you guys talking at PyCon if that's 
> the best way to make progress. I'm also looking forward to seeing Shane 
> again at PyCon after meeting him so briefly all these years ago when I 
> was still young and nimble. So I'm glad to hear he's going to make it! 
> I'm also happy I'll get to see you again as well!

I'll be the one who arrives Monday afternoon without much hair on top. :-)

Zope-Dev maillist  -
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to