On 10/9/06, Jean-Marc Orliaguet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's basically what I wrote the other day (The Times... ) : as an
application designer you want a *plugin architecture* with greasy fat
components, not an architecture with hundreds of micro-components wired
together like this:
http://j
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2006-10-9 19:59 +0200:
> ...
>Sure, you CAN try to
>reuse stuff (and I know some of your tools, e.g. rebindFunction et.al.
>from ReuseUtils), but most of these revolve more around implementation
>details than around well-defined APIs and responsibilities.
This
Andreas Jung wrote at 2006-10-9 19:24 +0200:
> ...
>We have some code where some classes have up to 15(!) base classes (usually
>mixin classes), not counting classes inherited from the mix-in classes. I
>would call that unmanageable.
Each of these classes represent a mixed in feature.
You get 15
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 10/9/06, Dieter Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2006-10-7 23:51 +0200:
> ...
>> I find that the introduction of classes with (multiple) inheritance
>> has been very economic. It was another concept but a highly fruitful
>> one, despi
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2006-10-7 23:51 +0200:
...
I find that the introduction of classes with (multiple) inheritance
has been very economic. It was another concept but a highly fruitful
one, despite the fact that they are not so liked in Zope3 land.
I think "fa
On 10/9/06, Dieter Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2006-10-7 23:51 +0200:
> ...
>> I find that the introduction of classes with (multiple) inheritance
>> has been very economic. It was another concept but a highly fruitful
>> one, despite the fact that they ar
--On 9. Oktober 2006 19:11:55 +0200 Dieter Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I would not recommend anyone to over-use multiple inheritance as it's
been done in Zope 2.
I am a strong favorite of (multiple) inheritance and use it excessively.
I have the feeling that it makes me very producti
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2006-10-7 23:51 +0200:
> ...
>> I find that the introduction of classes with (multiple) inheritance
>> has been very economic. It was another concept but a highly fruitful
>> one, despite the fact that they are not so liked in Zope3 land.
>
>I think "fat" objects
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2006-9-30 02:30 +0200:
...
You want to stick this interface to individual objects,
while Lennart proposed to stick it to a type and use
some kind of inheritance to make it effective on all objects
instantiated from this type.
But where doe
Lennart Regebro wrote:
Types in Zope 3 are typically expressed by interfaces.
Yes, and that would most likely be the case here too. Most likely
which "type" and object is would be expressed by letting that object
have a specific interface. This does not make "interface" and "type"
conceptually
Above all,
I should mention that I believe this discussion is largely about Z3,
and I do not live in Z3 world yet. Actually I am developing more in
2.7 currently. But the policy I state below is valid for 2.x also,
afaik.
On 10/4/06, Jean-Marc Orliaguet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Patrick Gerken
Patrick Gerken wrote:
On 10/2/06, Olavo Santos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just a quick side note.
Many "deprecation sign for any user" are clearly signs that Zope
developers are unable to maintain certain Zope features. This is bad,
specially for guys that have to manage large, complex
On 10/2/06, Olavo Santos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just a quick side note.
Many "deprecation sign for any user" are clearly signs that Zope
developers are unable to maintain certain Zope features. This is bad,
specially for guys that have to manage large, complex and long time running
z
On 10/3/06, Dario Lopez-Kästen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Lennart Regebro said the following on 10/02/2006 11:16 AM:
> On 10/2/06, Olavo Santos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Many "deprecation sign for any user" are clearly signs that Zope
>> developers are unable to maintain certain Zope feat
Lennart Regebro said the following on 10/02/2006 11:16 AM:
> On 10/2/06, Olavo Santos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Many "deprecation sign for any user" are clearly signs that Zope
>> developers are unable to maintain certain Zope features.
>
> No they are not.
Technically that is correct.
On 10/2/06, Olavo Santos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Many "deprecation sign for any user" are clearly signs that Zope
developers are unable to maintain certain Zope features.
No they are not. AFAIK there are only two features that have fallen
out of maintainability, and that's ZClasses and t
From: "Philipp von Weitershausen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, 30 de September de 2006 18:56
Hello.
Also the thread that ZClass (re)distribution code will be removed
need not worry you too much. Fortunately, Zope is open source
and you can simply combine the new release
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 29. September 2006 02:23:13 +0200 Philipp von Weitershausen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Also the thread that ZClass (re)distribution code will be removed
need not worry you too much. Fortunately, Zope is open source
and you can simply combine the n
On 9/30/06, Philipp von Weitershausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But where does this type come from? Persistent classes are hard (hence
ZClasses cannot be maintained by anyone except a few people).
I'm hopeful that this can be solved without actually reverting to that
kind of magic.
I don't s
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2006-9-30 02:30 +0200:
> ...
>> You want to stick this interface to individual objects,
>> while Lennart proposed to stick it to a type and use
>> some kind of inheritance to make it effective on all objects
>> instantiated from this type.
>
>But where does this t
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 9/29/06, Dieter Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You want to stick this interface to individual objects,
while Lennart proposed to stick it to a type and use
some kind of inheritance to make it effective on all objects
instantiated from this type.
For me, Lennart's ap
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2006-9-29 01:35 +0200:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2006-9-28 14:23 +0200:
...
Why not set marker interfaces directly on the objects? That whole "type"
thing is unnecessary. Just use interfaces.
Usually, a typ
On 9/29/06, Dieter Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You want to stick this interface to individual objects,
while Lennart proposed to stick it to a type and use
some kind of inheritance to make it effective on all objects
instantiated from this type.
For me, Lennart's approach seems to be far m
--On 29. September 2006 02:23:13 +0200 Philipp von Weitershausen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Also the thread that ZClass (re)distribution code will be removed
need not worry you too much. Fortunately, Zope is open source
and you can simply combine the new release with pi
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2006-9-29 01:35 +0200:
>Dieter Maurer wrote:
>> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2006-9-28 14:23 +0200:
>>> ...
>>> Why not set marker interfaces directly on the objects? That whole "type"
>>> thing is unnecessary. Just use interfaces.
>>
>> Usually, a type is
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Also the thread that ZClass (re)distribution code will be removed
need not worry you too much. Fortunately, Zope is open source
and you can simply combine the new release with pieces of an older
release to retain features essential to you.
I see no problem in making the "ZC
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2006-9-28 14:23 +0200:
...
Why not set marker interfaces directly on the objects? That whole "type"
thing is unnecessary. Just use interfaces.
Usually, a type is seen as a set of objects, its type instances.
It is quite nice to be able
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2006-9-28 14:23 +0200:
> ...
>Why not set marker interfaces directly on the objects? That whole "type"
>thing is unnecessary. Just use interfaces.
Usually, a type is seen as a set of objects, its type instances.
It is quite nice to be able to work on a object s
Thanks for the comments. For all the things you wrote that I deleted,
I would just say "Exactly!" :-) Here are the things that are not
"exactly!":
On 9/28/06, Philipp von Weitershausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Have you looked at zope.app.schemacontent, Sidnei's prototype for
TTW-schemas and co
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 9/27/06, Andreas Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's definitely time to work on a replacement.
Yes. And here is my short vision of that. Comments are appreciated.
Have you looked at zope.app.schemacontent, Sidnei's prototype for
TTW-schemas and content based on th
Andreas Jung skrev:
--On 27. September 2006 13:47:26 -0400 Jonathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
... i don't suppose anyone has an 'automagical' utility that instantly
transforms zclasses to python classes, and then changes all dtml/external
method usage do they? ...didn't think so ;-)
Also
31 matches
Mail list logo
