mborch at gmail
Nov 7, 2011, 1:36 AM
On 7 November 2011 09:17, Ross Patterson <me [at] rpatterson> wrote:
Re: [Plone-developers] experimental.broken - Graceful handling of broken interfaces and components in the ZODB
> The intention of this package is to see if the implementation of broken
> object handling is correct and robust enough to merge into
> zope.interface and zope.component themselves. Is this the right
> approach? If not why and what would be better? How might this approach
> be improved?
(removed plone-dev from cc).
Isn't it symptom treatment though? If you've got an add-on which adds
marker interfaces to "general objects", shouldn't that add-on remove –
or no longer provide – those same interfaces when it's uninstalled? At
least in Plone, you can easily query content objects providing a
particular set of interfaces.
I think it's a non-goal to be able to run a system without all the
required software – which is how I understand it when you just do a
"hard remove" of an add-on without a prior "soft remove".
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev [at] zope
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -