This was just a documentation emphasis... Pyramid won't be getting rid of the component registry without a damn good reason.
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Iain Duncan <iainduncanli...@gmail.com>wrote: > >>> Configurator methods to call, just as the docs do now. Theoretically, >>> Pyramid may disuse the ZCA in a future major release (although it's >>> highly unlikely). >>> >>> > It might also be worth mentioning that dis-using the ZCA would end a lot > of my work for our system, and force us to either stay on a frozen version > or fork. I do hope to write cookbook stuff on how and why we use the style > we use, so I guess take this as a request to be transparent about that > possibility, and perhaps not make that decision unilaterally without > community discussion and input. One thing I definitely don't want to do is > spend time writing documentation and publishing tools that are then > rendered either useless or convoluted to use ( as would be the case if we > were telling users to add in their own version of the zca registry. I mean, > it would be really really really bad for our work. Please do not treat that > decision lightly. > > Thanks > Iain > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "pylons-discuss" group. > To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en.
