2006/2/2, Graham Dumpleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Note that up until now I hadn't even looked over how this new module > importer was implemented. I knew it wasn't going to solve various of the > existing module importer problems and I knew it was actually going to > introduce some new issues that would have to be worked around, but now > that I have started to document these new issues for inclusion in my > module importer issues list and when I see other possible problems like > the above, I am really starting to wander if it is really a good idea > letting this interim solution to module importing problems be released. > > Comments? > > Graham
You know, Graham, I'm very frustrated about this because we decided not to go any further on the module importer issue until we reach 3.3. Hence, I have stopped any development on this level and kept the code as is (i.e. in a working state), hoping that the 3.2 release would come soon and that we would be able to move on quickly. More than six months later we're still at the same point and now you're beginning to ask questions about the interim solution. Well, indeed, it's an interim solution, but it works and fixes a lot of bugs. It's not perfect, we'll surely have some people asking us how to import one published module from another one (I had wrote some code to support that, but it was refused), but it was never supposed to last long. Anyway, I'd like to point out that I've been using this publisher in various professional projects for months now without having any problems. It's not like we are releasing something flaky. The only problem is that apache.import_module is still as crappy as ever and that we don't have any grand unified theory of module importing that would support both handlers and published modules. Regards, Nicolas
