On 4/27/09 5:19 AM, Malthe Borch wrote:
> I realize this documentation is still in progress; yet, here are
> some comments, posted to the list to maybe encourage some kind of
> debate (since it's likely that there will be several consumers of this
> package in repoze.* in the future:
> I find the introduction lacking; why do I care about indirection,
> what's the benefit.
Um. Why *do* we care about indirection? In particular, why do we care about
this sort of generic-function-ish dispatch pattern we call adaptation? Why do
we care about it for *every* application? I'm too brainwashed to answer that
question without thinking about views. If we want something to be bit off by
the larger Python community, we need an answer for this.
> Next, I can't read through the documentation if it's going to be all
> "a" and "somecomponent"; can we have some kind of context, e.g. a
> story-line or some likely scenario. This would help a lot in
> motivating the package in the first place, too.
> Instead, components (such as “adapters” and “utilities”) are
> registered using marker “component types”
> This is a cool feature and it should probably be mentioned upfront
> (e.g. not in the last section of the documentation); because afterall,
> you can program more strictly by adapting to marker-objects.
I'm actually having a bit of trouble naming those things. At first they were
called "plugin types", then "provides types", then finally "component types".
None of those names really work for me.
But anyway, yeah. For someone who has never used zope.component, though, it's
really not that important ("more strictly" compares to zope.component).
Repoze-dev mailing list