Re: What does python 3000 mean for zope?
Tres Seaver <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.zope.zope3 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Baiju M wrote: > Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: >> David Pratt wrote: >>> Hi. I am concerned about the announcement of python 3000 today that >>> will break backwards compatibility. Zope and twisted are my >>> favorite frameworks. The code base for both frameworks are not >>> small. I haven't evaluated the changes but I can say this is a not >>> great day for the python community either. I can see this dividing >>> folks between present and future. >>> >>> Particularly, I'm thinking about incompatibilities developing >>> around packages and dependencies through some sort of drawn out >>> transition by the python community that may take years. Has anyone >>> thoughts or comments about python 3000 implications for zope? >>> Unfortunately, my first thoughts are that Python 3000 feels like >>> Y2K for python :-(. Many thanks. >> We're currently struggling to get to Python 2.5 (which isn't exactly >> fresh out of the oven) mostly due to incompatibilities that it >> introduced compared to Python 2.4. So when Guido says Py3k will allow >> incompatible changes for the "first time", it'll be hard to imagine >> how big the implications really are. It's especially hard to imagine >> because Py3k isn't done yet. Will the stdlib be reorganized? Who >> knows. I sure would like to see this '2to3' tool tackle the Zope >> codebase. C extensions, anyone? > > In fact Python 2.5 porting was not as much difficult as predicted in an > old thread [1]. It isn't done yet, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. > Nikhil has completed porting to Python 2.5 as part of Google Summer of > Code project [2]. He ported *ZODB*, not Zope. The ExtensionClass changes are not done, and I think there are other C-level changes which have not > But we cannot officially support Python 2.5 until Zope 2 is also ported. > (This is a policy of Zope Foundation, I guess) > But we can give support for individual packages, is it ? > > May be we can try Python 3.0 porting in next GSoC ? :) Frankly, I'm uninterested in spending *any* effort on Py3K support: we'd be more likely to get traction out of Jython / IronPython (which are alreday stable, and run on platforms we don't yet support). Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 [email protected] Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFG2vsG+gerLs4ltQ4RAn1EAKCGpD38CFG4DPeJPNGcp1oHKqDviACgkmN1 l2rvqr8dBAbCyCqPwc9oEEI= =fA5F -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----