[ Andreas Jung wrote:]
>
>
> --On 21. November 2005 15:14:50 +0100 Lennart Regebro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Well, that would be cool. Just a question: How do you plan to keep and
>> verify backwards compatibility? Any database, with any type of
>> DateTime object, must work transparently.
>
> Perfect question. When we considered rewriting DateTime using mx.DateTime
> in 2001 we could answer this question :-) That's why the rewrite never
> happened.
>
> -aj

well, i'm aware of that issue. because DateTimes are probably used
very heavily i personally would prefer an offline update strategy, though
that could be quite tough, requiring to operate at zodb level and
inspecting every pickle. i'd prefer it for speed reasons, lazy update
always has to check the "format" of the instance and do the conversion
if necessary.
probably the offline strategy is not convenient enough for john q. public,
though...

is there a way to hook into the unpickling process of DateTime if we
choose the lazy update method?

btw. you mentioned mxDateTime - is it recommendable to make it a
requirement for zope or should we better stick to python's datetime?

regards, juergen herrmann
_______________________________________________________________________

>> XLhost.de - eXperts in Linux hosting <<

Jürgen Herrmann
Bruderwöhrdstraße 15b, DE-93051 Regensburg

Fon:  +49 (0)700 XLHOSTDE [0700 95467833]
Fax:  +49 (0)721 151 463027
WEB:  http://www.XLhost.de
_______________________________________________
Zope maillist  -  Zope@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )

Reply via email to