Martijn Faassen wrote:
Benji York wrote:
Darryl Cousins wrote:
On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 19:24 +0200, Martijn Faassen wrote:
I think my next step is to fix some dependencies for Grok to hard
version numbers...
I think that this is a good thing. I recently gave myself quite a bit
grief with a careless bin/buildout which broke my application. To avoid
that I need to be more specific in (I haven't attempted it yet
Specifying versions should be done by the application (buildout for example), not If versions are put in they limit what others can do with the version requirements (e.g., relaxing them).

The problem with this approach is that everybody setting up an application will need to know a lot about version numbers. I like reuse. I don't want to expose, say, all users of Grok, to a lot of version numbers they need to set.

I thin that's actually a third case. So far we have projects, applications, and now "frameworks" (for lack of a better word). Grok strikes me as a framework because you want to specify a known-good set of versions, but not in an all-in-one application distribution.

So, in case of Grok what we don't want is that everybody needs to hardcode all kinds of version numbers into their own buildout.cfg. *the same* version numbers, typically.

I'm not sure what the right approach is there, a simple versions.cfg that contains the suggested versions might be sufficient.

We'd want this list of version numbers to be maintained by the Grok developers instead. We could of course make our 'grokproject' tool generate the hardcoded dependencies for users, but that seems rather odd too. This means that if someone wants to update their grok-based application to a newer version of Grok (which requires a newer version of say,, they will still need to go in and edit their buildout.cfg. That sounds difficult to communicate and difficult to maintain.

As above, perhaps grok_versions.cfg could be one of (or the only) thing your users download. That's an interesting thought, the Grok project can produce lots of code and distributions and when it's time for a release, you release the grok-1.2-versions.cfg that people can update their local grok-versions.cfg with. I wonder if that model would work for future releases of "Zope 3".

In case of Grok, I think we do have such a central place: grok's If we hardcode version numbers there, there's no more need for people to start putting it in their buildout.cfg. It also means that if people require a newer version of a library that Grok also depends on, they will have to talk to the Grok developers and ask for an update. I think that may have good side effects: the grok developers can then first test with this updated library and after a new version of Grok is released, everybody will have the benefit of the newest version of the library.

That level of rigidity doesn't sound like much fun to me.
Benji York
Senior Software Engineer
Zope Corporation
Zope3-dev mailing list

Reply via email to