Jim Fulton wrote: > You were using? Or implementing? Do you realize that these wern't > actually being used and wern't implemented correctly?
Sorry, implementing, not using. > (BTW, One of the reasons for doing this cleanup is to set the stage > for a decent savepoint implementation.) > >>> 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. > > I'm afraid it does. ZODB is in a somewhat uniquely bad > state with regard to it's documentation and documented APIs. > As we can steal little chunks of time, Tim and I (and recently > Christian Theune) are trying to clean them up, but, as Tim says > you shouldn't pay much attention to them at the moment. I > expect that in the not too distant future we'll be able to get > them to a place where they are actually useful. This is good to know -- I'll tread more carefully for the time being. -- Garrett _______________________________________________ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3firstname.lastname@example.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com