Jonathan Ellis wrote: > Steve Holden wrote: > >>I think describing this as Ian saying the code in its current form "is a >>dead end" is to read rather more into the words than is actually there. > > > Well, that may be. However, given that the 0.x code is so crufty that > the v2 "refactor" is a multi-day (-week, now) process that merits a new > project name, and there are enough architecture warts that it's not > worth it to keep v2 backwards compatible, I'm not sure what > requirements of being a dead end are missing here. :) > > I suppose that in one sense no OSS project is a dead end since you can > always pick up the pieces yourself, but it's clear the 0.x series is > not a place to expect much in the way of new developments from its > author. > Sure, we can agree on that. I though you meant to imply that Ian was abandoning the concepts behind SQLObject rather that the somewhat crufty initial implementation.
regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd www.holdenweb.com Love me, love my blog holdenweb.blogspot.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
