Hey, On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Dan Korostelev <nadako@gmail.com> wrote: [snip] Okay, reuse of directive definitions and implementations is more widespread than I thought initially. Which is silly of me, as Grok itself also reuses directive actions (but not definitions) in some places.
But of course placing a few imports for backwards compatibility is not a lot of work and may be the easiest way out of this set of questions. :)
Yep. Also, as I said before I think we also need to use deprecation warnings for imports that are not classes for persistent objects (until Chiristian writes the tool to upgrade them :)).
As far as I understand in a recent discussion people indicated they didn't like deprecation warnings anywhere, as they are forced on third party users of code that itself isn't deprecating anything. Since Christian's tool is as I take it well underway couldn't we just rely on this? Also since it actually *fixes* the state of a ZODB, instead of just giving a lot of warnings and then leaving the helpless developer with writing some scary custom upgrade code. Regards, Martijn