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...
http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=92662
...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
soon.
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.
Gary
_______________________________________________
Zope3-dev mailing list
[email protected]
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
