On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:56 AM, Thomas Lotze<tho...@thomas-lotze.de> wrote:
> Jim Fulton <j...@zope.com> schrieb:
>> I object to removing API functions that client code might use. (Was
>> that a trick questions?) What is the point of this exercise?
> Sorry, this message shouldn't have been sent in the state it was.
> The original point of the exercise was to clean up the situation where
> the two closely related functions aren't part of the same APIs. Then I
> responded to the suggestion of removing the functions, noticing two
> things as I wrote: the functions are used by zope.app packages, and
> they are part of zope.traversing.api but not used by anything
> non-zope.app. As api-style modules have been questioned in the past, I
> wanted to raise the issue whether the functions are meant to remain
> part of that module or live in the ILocationInfo interface alone, but I
> got distracted at that point and for some reason sent the message,
> which I shouldn't have done.
> If the functions remain in the api module, the remaining issue would be
> whether to move the implementation of getParent to zope.location and
> thus treat it like getParents.

Right. I understood this in the original proposal. Given that it
doesn't break the existing API, I have no major problem with it, which
is why I didn't bother to respond in the first place.  I have a small
problem that it fattens an existing API. I have a larger problem that
we are wasting time on this. The cleanup doesn't seem worth it to me.
I especially don't like that *I'm* spending time on this rather than,
say, working on the kgs or our buildout discussions.


Jim Fulton
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