Tim Peters wrote:
> Maybe we need to stuff this crap back in again, despite that it's
> usless (the only thing actually implemented was an elaborate way of
> raising NotImplementedError) and misleading (because the ZODB4 scheme
> will never be implemented)?  I don't know, but it sure isn't
> attractive.

No need for that, at least not for my sake.

>>> As a pragmatic matter, I'd avoid even importing the interfaces
>>> defined in ZODB, because they're still so inadequate and crude (as
>>> above, even ZODB mostly ignores them now).  ZODB was a very late
>>> starter in the interface game, and there's not enough resource to
>>> play intense "interface catchup" in that project -- this gets poked
>>> at in slow motion, by forcing it briefly from time to time at the
>>> expense of more urgent ZODB tasks.
>> I don't think this has anything to do with the ZODB.
> It does:  the transaction package is external (to Zope3) code, and
> comes from the ZODB project.  That wasn't new in ZODB 3.3 or 3.4, BTW
> -- transactions are a database concept, and the core implementation of
> transactions has always come from ZODB.  Everything you've talked
> about here so far is ZODB's code.

Alrighty then. I'll keep my eye for changes to those packages then. I
wasn't aware that they were still in so much flux.

 -- Garrett
Zope3-dev mailing list
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to