On Aug 26, 2005, at 2:56 AM, Daniel Krech wrote:
On Aug 25, 2005, at 2:32 PM, Gary Poster wrote:
On Aug 24, 2005, at 9:13 PM, Michel Pelletier wrote:
On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 12:39 -0400, Gary Poster wrote:
Since Dan is already using Twisted in his app server, maybe he'd be
willing to let RDFLib drink the Zope interface Kool-Aid along with us
and Twisted.

I'm up for the zope.interface Kool-Aid if we can do it and fall back to the current functionality when zope.interface is not installed. Also, what's the latest on the likelyhood of zope.interface making it into Python2.5? Or timeframe on Python2.5 for that matter ;)

Guido said in his blog that he's now pro-interface...
...but no timeframe to my knowledge (nor happy concensus in his blog's comments :-). I asked Jim Fulton and he knew of no direct plans.

I know he's looked at it, and previously he used zope.server before
twisted. I think he might be out for a couple of days, so we'll wait to see what he thinks. I wonder how "lite" the component kernel can go.

I was out for a few days... am back now and catching up. Sorry for the delay in responding.

No problem.  Thanks for replying.

The only thing I have in mind is the interface package, which is what Twisted uses. That's all we would need. zope.component needs zope.interface, zope.testing, and zope.exceptions, according to its DEPENDENCIES.cfg.

In the mean time the adapters can live inside Zemantic, which is an
rdflib to zope bridge anyway. Let me know if you want to send patches,
otherwise I'll probably get around to adding functionality like this

It might be easier to implement some of these things in Zemantic and push them down once we get a better idea of the impact

Understood. I may still concentrate on RDFLib first, at least for my own drafts; we'll see.

I'm actually interested in trying to hook this up, but have very limited time. I might play with it just within RDFLib alone during some hobby time tonight, but otherwise may need to toss this off to you if you'll catch it.

Did you get a chance to give it a go? Sorry again for not getting back to you sooner.

That's ok. No, I wanted to get a feel for your take on this, and I had other work that needed to be done.

I also kind of want to hear Dan's reaction before I spend too much time.

I thought I read that an RDF triad was itself something that could be a node in another RDF triad, but I can't find that anywhere now. Can you confirm or deny? :-)

RDF does not support nested or quoted graphs. N3 and cwm[1] do though and I'm interested in implementing support for nested graphs to narrow the gap between rdflib and cwm[1] to help us converge on some interfaces.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/cwm

That's the formulae stuff? It seems pretty similar in effect to the reification approach, but a prettier spelling. Efficient generic indexing for either is probably a solved problem but not immediately evident to me.

You also suggest moving away from reification in the following email; I'll respond to that separately, sometime this weekend hopefully.

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

Reply via email to