[ 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 )
