I really like Gary's suggestions here, which I'll paraphrase:
First create interfaces that content can be adapted to to get a UUID, so
other people can provide different implementations and those can
interoperate. Then, create default implementations that work however
you like.
Then if
On Friday 20 April 2007 10:01, Benji York wrote:
First create interfaces that content can be adapted to to get a UUID, so
other people can provide different implementations and those can
interoperate. Then, create default implementations that work however
you like.
This is actually a pattern
On Apr 19, 2007, at 12:56 PM, Derek Richardson wrote:
We've talked a lot about the composition alternative to my idea,
but we haven't talked about my idea much. What is suboptimal with
the way I'm proposing, other than that it requires changing zope core?
Martin Aspeli had some concrete
Derek Richardson wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Derek Richardson wrote:
I sense that I'm missing the point here. Perhaps you can elaborate on
what you mean when you say use and collaboration. I usually know
what those terms mean, but I'm not sure I am getting it in this context.
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Martin and Gary pointed out other good reasons why not to go with
subclassing: the standard intid utility doesn't work in all
environments. Apparently in Zope 2 you'll need a slightly differnet
implementation. If you just defer to it via utility lookup, your
Derek Richardson wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Martin and Gary pointed out other good reasons why not to go with
subclassing: the standard intid utility doesn't work in all
environments. Apparently in Zope 2 you'll need a slightly differnet
implementation. If you just defer to it
Derek Richardson wrote:
All,
I've decided to go ahead and write an RFC 4122 UUID utility based on
zope.intid (this is for a Plone SoC project, but this bit is pure Zope
3). I wrote most of it today and there is more code shared between the
two than is different. The main differences are:
*
Benji York wrote:
Derek Richardson wrote:
I wrote most of it today and there is more code shared between the two
than is different. The main differences are:
* OOBTrees, instead of an IOBTree and an OIBTree
* Different events are fired when an object is registered and
unregistered (they
Derek Richardson wrote:
*Using* an int id utility, though, doesn't seem to cleanly solve the
problem,
Why?
which makes me wonder if I'm understanding you. If you mean use
the intid utility to map keyrefs to int ids and then map int ids to
uuids, this has a few problems.
Which ones?
What
I have no principled objection to a ZPL license. And I would like the
code to make it into the core, if appropriate. So, the answer is, a ZPL
license is likely.
David Pratt wrote:
I like this idea of abstracting the code for ids myself. It will be
interesting to hear what others have to say.
10 matches
Mail list logo
