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