Chris McDonough wrote:
This merge has been done.
Since "zopectl test " no longer appears to do the right
thing and I can't seem to get test.py to run anything except the entire
test suite, I didn't create any new tests because I wouldn't have had
the time to create tests and run them iteratively
[Chris McDonough]
|> Note that I don't have a strong opinion about this either way but I will
> note that at least Zope 2's subclass of the "zodb" config handler will
> need to continue to be willing to use the section title as the database
> name for backwards compatibility reasons, as people who
On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 11:13 -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
> >
> > Not really: a DB's database_name was introduced specifically for the
> > new-in-ZODB-3.5 multidatabase feature, and has no meaning or use apart
> > from its multidatabase role. That's better explained in the ZConfig
> > section for th
Tim Peters wrote:
[Tim Peters]
I think it's worse, but mostly because a key with name "name" is also
an option in _related_ sections, but with unrelated meaning. For
example, if you had a nested section there it could also
have specified a "name" key, which would have nothing to do with the
[Tim Peters]
>> I think it's worse, but mostly because a key with name "name" is also
>> an option in _related_ sections, but with unrelated meaning. For
>> example, if you had a nested section there it could also
>> have specified a "name" key, which would have nothing to do with the
>> key nam
Tim Peters wrote:
I think it's worse, but mostly because a key with name "name" is also
an option in _related_ sections, but with unrelated meaning. For
example, if you had a nested section there it could also
have specified a "name" key, which would have nothing to do with the
key named "name
