Hey, On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Jim Fulton <jim@zope.com> wrote:
On Mar 28, 2008, at 11:05 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote: ...
+1 - I already mentioned this option as well. Note that existing Zope 3 applications can at least be made to run if you just let the proxying code do nothing and return the object itself, I imagine. They'll run insecurity, but they should run.
I'd rather not have something like this checked in anywhere. I'd rather make it easier and more explicit to control whether proxies are used.
Sure, agreed that would be better.
Note that zope.interface was already ported at least some distance by the twisted people at Pycon.
Interesting. Did anything get checked in to the z.o repo?
This I don't know about. Georgy should ask the Jython people, who seem to know more. :)
I could therefore *imagine* focusing on some speedup work by rewriting bits of code to Java, but I agree with you that the primary, initial goal should be to get things to work, and that performance work should be secondary. So perhaps this can be in an 'optional-if-there-is-time-left' section, and going in with the assumption that time will not be left.
In particular, I'd prefer to see more of the stack get ported over speedups.
Yes, I think that's a good goal for the project for the forseeable (this summer) future. I don't know how hard it is to port most of the Python stack, but we will be finding out. Georgy, a report on the things you run into while porting this stuff over would also be *very* useful, so I suggest you make the production of such a report part of your plan. Of course also needed is a list of the packages you ported over, and perhaps the packages you didn't manage to because of particular issues. Regards, Martijn