[06:36:46] [connected at Wed Apr  9 06:36:46 2008]
[06:36:46] <> *** Looking up your hostname...
[06:36:46] <> *** Checking ident
[06:36:46] <> *** No identd (auth) response
[06:36:46] <> *** Found your hostname
[06:36:46] <> *** Your host is clarke.freenode.net[clarke.freenode.net/6667], running version hyperion-1.0.2b
[06:36:48] [I have joined #peak]
[06:36:48] ** clarke.freenode.net set the topic to does anyone remember the real topic ? - not really ...
[07:21:42] ** akt has joined us
[07:22:09] ** akt has left IRC (Client Quit)
[08:10:05] ** akt has joined us
[08:59:16] ** akt has left IRC ()
[09:00:51] ** akt has joined us
[09:19:25] ** akt has left IRC ()
[09:23:29] ** akt has joined us
[09:54:00] <akt> I'd like to have RuleDispatch to be uploaded to PyPI. Who can I ask for it?
[11:57:19] ** akt has left IRC ()
[12:07:40] ** pje has joined us
[18:33:50] ** akt has joined us
[19:03:59] zooko is now known as zookonap
[19:32:02] <coderanger> pje: Did you see the message from akt?
[19:32:12] <coderanger> "akt: I'd like to have RuleDispatch to be uploaded to PyPI. Who can I ask for it?"
[19:32:17] zookonap is now known as zooko
[19:32:26] <pje> nope, didn't see it
[19:32:39] <pje> akt, please use PEAK-Rules instead, if you can.
[19:33:07] <akt> you mean RuleDispatch is obsoleed?
[19:33:17] <pje> there is a partial backward compatibility API in PEAK-Rules: from peak.rules import dispatch
[19:33:55] <pje> yes, PEAK-Rules is simpler, doesn't depend on PyProtocols, and has much better tests
[19:34:01] <akt> So, how about fixing dependencies in setup.py?
[19:34:07] <akt> If I may ask?
[19:34:23] <pje> PEAK-Rules is registered in PyPI
[19:34:32] <pje> so depend on PEAK-Rules instead of RuleDispatch.
[19:34:53] <pje> If it's another product using RuleDispatch, you'll need to talk with them about switching.
[19:36:10] <akt> yeah, turbojson depends on ruledispatch
[19:36:27] <akt> I'll ask the maintainer to change it. thank you!
[19:38:46] <akt> To ask this change to the maintainer, it would be nice to refer some doc explaining PEAK-Rules should be used instead
[19:39:06] <akt> to convince the maintainer that switch is nice.
[19:39:11] <akt> is there any?
[19:45:33] <akt> Okay, I'll suggest him to change it refering your suggestion here. thanks
[19:45:45] <akt> pje: to you
[19:46:03] <pje> http://pypi.python.org/pypi/PEAK-Rules
[19:46:48] <pje> the fact that it's actually in PyPI should help  :)
[19:47:12] <akt> and it's stabler, isn't it?
[19:47:28] <pje> depends on your definition of "stabler".
[19:47:40] <pje> It has much better testing, but it's in active development
[19:48:09] <akt> less bug, spread use, a lot of support
[19:48:09] <pje> if by stable you mean "the code doesn't change at all", then that would be RuleDispatch.  :)
[19:48:48] <pje> RuleDispatch isn't really supported any more, short of major bug fixes.  It definitely won't be ported to 2.6 or 3.0.
[19:49:34] <akt> ok, that's enough thanks.
[20:45:29] ** pje has left IRC ("Client exiting")
[21:50:16] ** akt has left IRC ()