On Thursday 11 January 2007 16:10, Dieter Maurer wrote:
I can see that such a strategy may be helpful when one wants to
resolve conflicts in some way. However, I do not see
why is should be necessary for registration that are not expected
to conflict.
Going into some detail. If imports have
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Thu Jan 11 12:00:00 2007 UTC to Fri Jan 12 12:00:00 2007 UTC.
There were 7 messages: 7 from Zope Unit Tests.
Tests passed OK
---
Subject: OK : Zope-2.6 Python-2.1.3 : Linux
From: Zope Unit Tests
Date: Thu Jan 11 21:09:40 EST 2007
Stephan Richter wrote at 2007-1-12 03:03 -0500:
On Thursday 11 January 2007 16:10, Dieter Maurer wrote:
I can see that such a strategy may be helpful when one wants to
resolve conflicts in some way. However, I do not see
why is should be necessary for registration that are not expected
to
I've submitted a patch for zope.app.interface.PersistentInterfaceClass
and it looks like I could use the approach of zodbcode ModuleManagers
and zope.app.interface.PersistentInterfaceClass instances for what I
need.
Over the course of this work, however, I noticed
On Thursday 11 January 2007 16:03, Dieter Maurer wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote at 2007-1-11 03:12 -0500:
...
If you are populating the CA before ZCML is fully parsed, then:
DO NOT POPULATE THE CA WHILE IMPORTING!!!
This is so bad on so many levels. Dieter, your problem is just one
