On 7/2/09 4:12 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> Malthe Borch wrote:
>> 2009/7/2 Tim Hoffman<t...@zute.net>:
>>> I think you woul lose that capability with just name based registrations.
>> Yes, but perhaps for the better; it was always problematic to use
>> component adaptation to create specialized views based on the iro,
>> because of the order of adaptation, e.g. with viewlets:
>> context, request, view, manager
>> You will easily run into situations where you need to do a lot of
>> seeming superflouous component registrations because you've
>> specialized on ``context``, say.
>> I think there is a better scheme out there which does not rely in this
>> way on multi-adaptation.
> The fact that multi-adaptation can be hard doesn't mean it can't also be
> useful: I don't see *any* way to achieve Tim's goals without something
> like an IRO.
You can either:
- unwind the "IRO" and attach all the "interfaces" to the context object
- use a class as the context that has the specialized interface, but
subclasses something that uses the default interface.
There's nothing particularly magical about IRO except convenience.
Repoze-dev mailing list