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