-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> Florent Guillaume wrote:
>> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
>>> If people don't like the 'browser2' prefix, I'm open to other
>>> suggestions. For all I care, the three directives I suggested could
>>> be on the 'browser' namespace, only browser2:page and browser:page
>>> clash. So perhaps browser2:page should be named something else. I
>>> can't seem to come up with good alternatives, though.
>> I haven't looked closely, but can't we have one <browser:page> whose
>> behaviour changes according to what attributes it has? If old
>> attributes are provided, a deprecation message is sent but the old
>> code is used. Otherwise the new behaviour is in effect.
> Heh, of course. In fact, that was my original idea, but Tres & Co.
> objected to it (changing browser:page in-place instead of creating a new
There is no particular reason to have the new directives in the same
namespace as the old ones, but note that the "convenience prefix"
('browser' vs. 'browser2') is strictly up to the author of the ZCML
file, and not up to the directive author.
Changing the namespace declration at the top of that file would be a
sign that one had adopted the new semantics, which seems like a good
gesture to me.
If we don't adopt a new namespace, perhaps 'browser:published'would
serve as a 'nominalized adjective" noun form of 'browser:publish'.
In any case, I would argue for having the new directives deployed as
alternatives for at least a release *before* we talk about deprecating
the old ones.
Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Zope3-dev mailing list