Hanno Schlichting wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Wichert Akkerman <wichert@wiggy.net> wrote:
We could also say that we will clean up the API when we move to Python 3. That is a natural breaking point anyway, so it will not any extra pain for users of the ZCA.
Except that is precisely what the Python developers have asked everyone not to do. So far the story is that the upgrade to Python 3 can be done largely automatic and a codebase for 2.x and 3.x can be maintained automatically and kept in sync.
That's a nice theory, but experience suggests it'll be a right mess. Is anyone doing this successfully on a project of a comparable size to Zope? Or Plone? It sounds like fantasy to me. Why? Because if the compatibility really was that "mechanical" there would probably be a way to run Python 2 code in Python 3 - and there isn't.
Once you introduce semantic instead of syntactic differences outside Python 3 itself into the whole mix, it gets virtually impossible to maintain a codebase that works on both 2.x and 3.x.
This feels like we're trying to solve a different problem.
So while the Python 3 uptake is still slow, I think we shouldn't add more roadblocks onto that path.
A laudable goal, but I don't think it should be a consideration here. Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book