[Zope-CMF] Re: Effective Date inconsistencies
limi at plone.org
Sun Jun 24 14:41:44 EDT 2007
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 06:33:28 -0700, Tres Seaver
<tseaver at palladion.com> wrote:
> - -1: anybody who is using the string representations for comparison is
> mising the point: those values are "display only." they should be
> using the forms which return real datetime obojects.
Yeah, I wasn't arguing for changing the DC element accessors, I know those
should be strings.
> The ceiling / floor date bits are there to support indexing / sorting,
> and therefore comparison.
> We could tackle this by adding an argument, 'use_ceiling' / 'use_floor'
> to those methods, defaulting it to True for this release, and then
> switch the default and add a deprecation warning in the next release.
> Or we could add new APIs, e.g. 'effectiveOrNone', 'expiresOrNone' and
> leave the current methods alone.
> If you want to talk about remonving those bits, you still have to deal
> with special casing the bits where the content object has a real None
> value. For indexing, we can use the support provided already by
> DateRangeIndex for handling "open" intervals (the real case that the
> floor / ceiling were meant to handle).
OK, I just wanted to compare two dates like I do in Python, and display a
result accordingly. So would the "correct" thing to do here make it
support None as a return value, but switch to DateRangeIndex?
Alexander Limi · http://limi.net
More information about the Zope-CMF