On Thursday 15 April 2004 17:11, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Anyway, I guess the tokenizer is
> fine too, and might even be faster for all I know, just seems an
> unfortunate duplication of work, plus I checked in importchecker for
> little reason. :)
No, Fred was just a bit faster than me with impr
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 15 April 2004 13:22, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Note that for checking dependencies in Python code I still think this
tool could be improved by using technology from importchecker.py
http://cvs.zope.org/Zope3/utilities/importchecker.py
which can use Python's compile
On Thursday 15 April 2004 13:22, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Note that for checking dependencies in Python code I still think this
> tool could be improved by using technology from importchecker.py
>
> http://cvs.zope.org/Zope3/utilities/importchecker.py
>
> which can use Python's compiler module to l
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 15 April 2004 11:39, Casey Duncan wrote:
Additionally (and Jim and I have discussed this amongst ourselves) I
feel strongly that the dependancies should be enforced by tests. That
is, if you introduce and errant dependancy (by adding an import to a new
package no
On Thursday 15 April 2004 11:39, Casey Duncan wrote:
> Additionally (and Jim and I have discussed this amongst ourselves) I
> feel strongly that the dependancies should be enforced by tests. That
> is, if you introduce and errant dependancy (by adding an import to a new
> package not in the stdlib
On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 11:39, Casey Duncan wrote:
> Additionally (and Jim and I have discussed this amongst ourselves) I
> feel strongly that the dependancies should be enforced by tests.
Good point.
> The dependancy tests might need to be separate from unittests because
> they would probably re
On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 10:23, Jim Fulton wrote:
> Each separately distributed package will have a DEPENDENCIES.cfg that is
> created by hand and that *constrains* dependencies on other packages. It
> makes explicit the intended dependencies. Dependencies not listed here
> are bugs. Adding depenenc
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 09:25, Jim Fulton wrote:
From the zope package README.txt:
"Zope Project Packages
The zope package is a pure namespace package holding packages developed as
part of the Zope 3 project.
Generally, the immediate subpackages of the zope package sho
Lennart Regebro wrote:
From: "Sidnei da Silva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- Move component-architecture packages out of 'zope' into 'ca', and
then we don't have the 'zope' vs 'Zope' issue anymore.
'ca' feels weird. Canada? caca? I don't like it. 'z' is better then. Of
course that means that suddenly
On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 09:25, Jim Fulton wrote:
> From the zope package README.txt:
>
>"Zope Project Packages
>
>The zope package is a pure namespace package holding packages developed as
>part of the Zope 3 project.
>
>Generally, the immediate subpackages of the zope package sh
From: "Sidnei da Silva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> - Move component-architecture packages out of 'zope' into 'ca', and
>then we don't have the 'zope' vs 'Zope' issue anymore.
'ca' feels weird. Canada? caca? I don't like it. 'z' is better then. Of
course that means that suddenly the component archi
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 08:59:44AM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
| >So, what about this:
| >
| >zope.component
| >zope.interfaces (?)
| >zope.configuration
| >zope.testing
| >zope.schema (soon-to-be-dead?)
| >
| >- All move to 'ca.*'
|
| Most of this has nothing to do with the co
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 08:59:44AM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
| >So, what about this:
| >
| >zope.component
| >zope.interfaces (?)
| >zope.configuration
| >zope.testing
| >zope.schema (soon-to-be-dead?)
| >
| >- All move to 'ca.*'
|
| Most of this has nothing to do with the component architecture.
|
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 11:46:27AM +0200, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
| >- The packages in "z" can be used for more than just Zope
|
| +2
So, here's an idea:
- Move component-architecture packages out of 'zope' into 'ca', and
then we don't have the 'zope' vs 'Zope
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 11:46:27AM +0200, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
| >- The packages in "z" can be used for more than just Zope
|
| +2
So, here's an idea:
- Move component-architecture packages out of 'zope' into 'ca', and
then we don't have the 'zope' vs 'Zope' issue anymore.
I've
Jim,
let's make this telegraph style :)
OK, here's another.
What about renaming the Zope 3 zope package to "z".
+1
- It fits with the expansion of "Zope":
"Z Object Publishing Environment".
- It's short :)
- *At this time* (but after the move to svn), it's not too hard to make
a change lik
16 matches
Mail list logo
