On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 11:43:26PM +0200, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> [included: Christian Theune (z3c.sqlalchemy), cc-ed to Andreas Jung
> (z3c.sqlalchemy), Laurence Row (collective.lead)]
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 11:33 PM, Christian Theune <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 05:22:31PM -0400, Brandon Craig Rhodes wrote:
> > > I can't get the new "zalchemy" working even against SQLAlchemy
> > > trunk. :-) Might the dependency actually be against an un-merged
> > > branch of SQLAlchemy, rather than merely against an unreleased
> > > SQLAlchemy trunk?
> > That's probably right.
> We should really straighten out this situation. I can only use a
> branch of collective.lead with a recent sqlalchemy, the z3c.zalchemy
> package is evidently broken entirely. I don't know the status of
> z3c.sqlalchemy, though I know there's been some activity recently, so
> perhaps that Just Works.
> Wouldn't it be possible to factor at least some commonalities into a
> base package that all share? And factor out things like container
> classes from z3c.sqlalchemy? I know there's been plenty of
> cross-fertilization between the packages, but can't we aim for
> something better here? Do we really need three? Can't we work
> There must be a reason for this proliferation of integration layers.
> People are dissatisfied for whatever reason with one, and create
> another. I think it's high time for consolidation.
I'm all for this and agree with you. The current situation is because everyone
of us had slightly different use cases and the situation they found in the
foreign packages wasn't satisfying. Consolidation is a really good idea.
gocept gmbh & co. kg - forsterstrasse 29 - 06112 halle (saale) - germany
www.gocept.com - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - phone +49 345 122 9889 7 -
fax +49 345 122 9889 1 - zope and plone consulting and development
Zope3-users mailing list