On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 06:28:35PM +0200, Florent Guillaume wrote:
> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> >Thanks to everyone who commented on the first versions of this proposal.
> >People seem to object changing the old directives. I respect that.
> >
> >I've therefore changed the proposal to introduce *new* directives. See
> >http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/TheBrowserPageCompromise once again. 
> 
> If this will be the recommended way of doing things, I'd hate to have a 
> "browser2" forever or even for the next year. This is just ugly.
> 
> I'd prefer to user either a clean new prefix, or a new name in the 
> browser namespace, for example <browser:publish>.
> 

I think the naming <browser2:page> vs. <browser:publish> vs. ... is
not that important as the original name <browser:page> can be
reintruduced (with the meaning of the new concept) after the
deprecation period, i. e. I am thinking of having two (maybe three or
four) different periods:

* during the deprecation period both concepts coexist
  with different notations
    <browser:page>
    and <browser2:page> (<browser:publish>, ...)
  allowing for smooth transitions

* maybe some period where only the new concept is allowed
  i. e. only <browser2:page> (<browser:publish>, ...)
  to really enforce the use of this new concept

* <browser:page> can then be reintroduced as a synonym
  for <browser2:page> (<browser:publish>, ...)
  the ugly syntax might be deprecated this time

* finally drop the ugly syntax <browser2:page> (<browser:publish>, ...)

Might be interesting to look at how such incompatible changes
are introduced to the python language itself, see Guidos slides
on Python 3.0
  http://www.python.org/doc/essays/ppt/accu2006/Py3kACCU.ppt

I. e. during the Python 2.x series new concepts are introduced
with a new notation allowing for coexistence with the old concepts
e. g. new style classes vs. old style classes xrange() and range() etc.

But then in Python 3.x the simple old notations will be reused for the
better concepts.  I. e. the version number 3.x will make clear:
incompatible changes. 2.x and 3.x will be developed in parallel.

I am not suggesting Zope 4 yet though.

Just my two cents.

-Andreas


> >Note that
> >I'm not mentioning deprecation of the old directives which doesn't mean
> >I want to do it. Here is a poll:
> >
> >* Should the old directives be deprecated? (I think so)
> 
> Yes.
> 
> >* When should that happen? (I'd say now, meaning Zope 3.3)
> 
> ASAP. Dynamic class generation sucks.
> 
> >* When should they disappear? (I'd say in Zope 3.5)
> 
> 1 year after deprecation as usual.
> 
> Florent
> 
> -- 
> Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France)   Director of R&D
> +33 1 40 33 71 59   http://nuxeo.com   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> _______________________________________________
> Zope3-dev mailing list
> Zope3-dev@zope.org
> Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/reuleaux%40web.de
> 
> 
> 
> !DSPAM:444aa53e108331203678650!
_______________________________________________
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to