Re: [Zope-dev] component registry navelgazing
* 2011-06-12 22:49, Chris McDonough wrote: This seems slightly inconsistent with the adaptation worldview imposed by getAdapter/queryAdapter. I think it would be more consistent if c.queryAdapter(IFoo, foo) returned foo if foo already implemented IFoo and there was no other more specific adapter registered for the IFoo/foo pair in the registry, no? +1, way more consistent than returning None. Regards, Fabio ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] component registry navelgazing
On 12/06/2011 21:48, Chris McDonough wrote: Currently if you ask a registry to singly-adapt an object to an interface, and the object you're trying to adapt implements that interface, here's what happens: from zope.component.registry import Components c = Components() from zope.interface import Interface, implements class IFoo(Interface): pass ... class Foo(object): ... implements(IFoo) ... foo = Foo() c.queryAdapter(IFoo, foo) None Looking back in history: https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2008-August/032902.html I guess one or other of us has the parameter order wrong, probably me. Much thread ensued: https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2008-August/thread.html#32902 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2008-September/thread.html#33174 Some justification for keeping the status quo from Fred: https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2008-September/033172.html I stand by my resultant request here: https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2008-September/033170.html Maybe less people care about ZCA now and so we might actually get sensible changes made. Maybe forking would be easier... cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] component registry navelgazing
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 10:08 +0100, Chris Withers wrote: On 12/06/2011 21:48, Chris McDonough wrote: Currently if you ask a registry to singly-adapt an object to an interface, and the object you're trying to adapt implements that interface, here's what happens: from zope.component.registry import Components c = Components() from zope.interface import Interface, implements class IFoo(Interface): pass ... class Foo(object): ... implements(IFoo) ... foo = Foo() c.queryAdapter(IFoo, foo) None Looking back in history: https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2008-August/032902.html I guess one or other of us has the parameter order wrong, probably me. Much thread ensued: https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2008-August/thread.html#32902 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2008-September/thread.html#33174 Some justification for keeping the status quo from Fred: https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2008-September/033172.html I stand by my resultant request here: https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2008-September/033170.html Maybe less people care about ZCA now and so we might actually get sensible changes made. This argument against makes sense to me: https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2008-August/032908.html So I've added a method to a subclass of zope.component.registry.Components for my own purposes: def queryAdapterOrSelf(self, object, interface, default=None): provides = providedBy(object) if not interface in provides: return self.queryAdapter(object, interface, default=default) return object - C ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] zope-tests - FAILED: 12, OK: 53
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 06/13/2011 01:00 AM, Zope tests summarizer wrote: [5]FAILED Zope 3.4 Known Good Set / py2.4-32bit-linux https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-June/043168.html This fails (wihtout much other information) trying to download 'ClientForm==0.2.10': - % -- Getting distribution for 'ClientForm==0.2.10'. While: Installing test. Getting distribution for 'ClientForm==0.2.10'. Error: Couldn't find a distribution for 'ClientForm==0.2.10'. - % -- Which looks like a bogus error to me, given that the egg has been released to PyPI since 2008-12-03: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/ClientForm Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tsea...@palladion.com Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk319xQACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ7gFQCgv3nfxqP0ryEqBCcBoVBEg1iY yRQAni+MMJX4mmPGGzEOWcCp1fEXktam =Tmh2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] component registry navelgazing
Hiya, Am 12.06.2011, 22:48 Uhr, schrieb Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com: from zope.component.registry import Components c = Components() from zope.interface import Interface, implements class IFoo(Interface): pass ... class Foo(object): ... implements(IFoo) ... foo = Foo() c.queryAdapter(IFoo, foo) None In order to get the object itself back from such an adaptation, you need to use the default= argument. I know that the question has been answered but your question makes me ask another: why would you want to adapt an object with itself? Charlie -- Charlie Clark Managing Director Clark Consulting Research German Office Helmholtzstr. 20 Düsseldorf D- 40215 Tel: +49-211-600-3657 Mobile: +49-178-782-6226 ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] component registry navelgazing
Stepping in… and +1 for the original question On 06/13/2011 04:26 PM, Charlie Clark wrote: I know that the question has been answered but your question makes me ask another: why would you want to adapt an object with itself? The sake of logical consistency should be enough. If you think of it, it's very similar to addition of zero : why would you want to add nothing ? Not having to predict where/if/when such special cases may blow in your face is very useful, and has indeed been very productive in the past. -- Georges Racinet, http://www.racinet.fr, http://anybox.fr Zope/CPS OpenERP expertise, assistance development GPG: 0x4862FFF7 identi.ca twitter: gracinet signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] component registry navelgazing
On 13/06/2011 15:26, Charlie Clark wrote: In order to get the object itself back from such an adaptation, you need to use the default= argument. I know that the question has been answered but your question makes me ask another: why would you want to adapt an object with itself? I have something, I want something that implements IWhatever. Now, it may well be that something implements IWhatever, but it may also not. As the author of the code in question, I don't want to have to care. Other authors can plug in adapters for the cases where something doesn't implement IWhatever ;-) cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] component registry navelgazing
Am 13.06.2011, 17:01 Uhr, schrieb Chris Withers ch...@simplistix.co.uk: I have something, I want something that implements IWhatever. Now, it may well be that something implements IWhatever, but it may also not. As the author of the code in question, I don't want to have to care. Other authors can plug in adapters for the cases where something doesn't implement IWhatever I can appreciate the use case but not the semantics - you are not looking for an adapter but an implementation. I guess this is related to the IWhatever(object) approach which does the magic for you. I guess queryProvider(object, interface) would be a better spelling for that use case, which may be more general than I'm suggesting. Charlie -- Charlie Clark Managing Director Clark Consulting Research German Office Helmholtzstr. 20 Düsseldorf D- 40215 Tel: +49-211-600-3657 Mobile: +49-178-782-6226 ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] component registry navelgazing
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com wrote: Currently if you ask a registry to singly-adapt an object to an interface, and the object you're trying to adapt implements that interface, here's what happens: from zope.component.registry import Components c = Components() from zope.interface import Interface, implements class IFoo(Interface): pass ... class Foo(object): ... implements(IFoo) ... foo = Foo() c.queryAdapter(IFoo, foo) None In order to get the object itself back from such an adaptation, you need to use the default= argument. c.queryAdapter(IFoo, foo, default=foo) __main__.Foo object at 0x24a3910 This seems slightly inconsistent with the adaptation worldview imposed by getAdapter/queryAdapter. I think it would be more consistent if c.queryAdapter(IFoo, foo) returned foo if foo already implemented IFoo and there was no other more specific adapter registered for the IFoo/foo pair in the registry, no? I don't know what getAdapter/queryAdapter you're referring to in This seems slightly inconsistent with the adaptation worldview imposed by getAdapter/queryAdapter. Do you mean This seems slightly inconsistent with the adaptation worldview imposed by interface __call__. ? Jim -- Jim Fulton http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] component registry navelgazing
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Jim Fulton j...@zope.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com wrote: Currently if you ask a registry to singly-adapt an object to an interface, and the object you're trying to adapt implements that interface, here's what happens: from zope.component.registry import Components c = Components() from zope.interface import Interface, implements class IFoo(Interface): pass ... class Foo(object): ... implements(IFoo) ... foo = Foo() c.queryAdapter(IFoo, foo) None In order to get the object itself back from such an adaptation, you need to use the default= argument. c.queryAdapter(IFoo, foo, default=foo) __main__.Foo object at 0x24a3910 This seems slightly inconsistent with the adaptation worldview imposed by getAdapter/queryAdapter. I think it would be more consistent if c.queryAdapter(IFoo, foo) returned foo if foo already implemented IFoo and there was no other more specific adapter registered for the IFoo/foo pair in the registry, no? I don't know what getAdapter/queryAdapter you're referring to in This seems slightly inconsistent with the adaptation worldview imposed by getAdapter/queryAdapter. Do you mean This seems slightly inconsistent with the adaptation worldview imposed by interface __call__. ? By the later messages, I can see that that is what you meant to say. Jim -- Jim Fulton http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] zope-tests - FAILED: 8, OK: 52
This is the summary for test reports received on the zope-tests list between 2011-06-12 00:00:00 UTC and 2011-06-13 00:00:00 UTC: See the footnotes for test reports of unsuccessful builds. An up-to date view of the builders is also available in our buildbot documentation: http://docs.zope.org/zopetoolkit/process/buildbots.html#the-nightly-builds Reports received Bluebream / Python2.4.6 64bit linux Bluebream / Python2.5.5 64bit linux Bluebream / Python2.6.5 64bit linux ZTK 1.0 / Python2.4.6 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.0 / Python2.5.5 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.0 / Python2.6.5 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.0dev / Python2.4.6 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.0dev / Python2.5.5 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.0dev / Python2.6.5 Linux 64bit Zope 3.4 KGS / Python2.4.6 64bit linux Zope 3.4 KGS / Python2.5.5 64bit linux Zope 3.4 Known Good Set / py2.4-32bit-linux Zope 3.4 Known Good Set / py2.4-64bit-linux Zope 3.4 Known Good Set / py2.5-32bit-linux Zope 3.4 Known Good Set / py2.5-64bit-linux Zope Buildbot / zope2.12-py2.6 slave-osx Zope Buildbot / zope2.13-py2.6 slave-osx Zope Buildbot / zope2.13-py2.7 slave-osx Zope Buildbot / zope2.14-py2.6 slave-osx Zope Buildbot / zope2.14-py2.7 slave-osx Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-1.0-py2.4 slave-osx Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-1.0-py2.5 slave-osx Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-1.0-py2.6 slave-osx Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-1.1-py2.5 slave-osx Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-1.1-py2.6 slave-osx Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-py2.5 slave-osx Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-py2.6 slave-osx Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux Zope-2.12 Python-2.6.6 : Linux Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.6.6 : Linux Zope-2.13 Python-2.6.6 : Linux Zope-2.13-alltests Python-2.6.6 : Linux Zope-trunk Python-2.6.6 : Linux Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.6 : Linux winbot / ZODB_dev py_254_win32 winbot / ZODB_dev py_265_win32 winbot / ZODB_dev py_265_win64 winbot / ZODB_dev py_270_win32 winbot / ZODB_dev py_270_win64 [1]winbot / z3c.coverage_py_265_32 [2]winbot / z3c.rml_py_265_32 [3]winbot / zc_buildout_dev py_254_win32 [4]winbot / zc_buildout_dev py_265_win32 [5]winbot / zc_buildout_dev py_265_win64 [6]winbot / zc_buildout_dev py_270_win32 [7]winbot / zc_buildout_dev py_270_win64 winbot / ztk_10 py_254_win32 winbot / ztk_10 py_265_win32 [8]winbot / ztk_10 py_265_win64 winbot / ztk_11 py_254_win32 winbot / ztk_11 py_265_win32 winbot / ztk_11 py_265_win64 winbot / ztk_11 py_270_win32 winbot / ztk_11 py_270_win64 winbot / ztk_dev py_254_win32 winbot / ztk_dev py_265_win32 winbot / ztk_dev py_265_win64 winbot / ztk_dev py_270_win32 winbot / ztk_dev py_270_win64 Non-OK results -- [1]FAILED winbot / z3c.coverage_py_265_32 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-June/043240.html [2]FAILED winbot / z3c.rml_py_265_32 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-June/043239.html [3]FAILED winbot / zc_buildout_dev py_254_win32 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-June/043276.html [4]FAILED winbot / zc_buildout_dev py_265_win32 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-June/043277.html [5]FAILED winbot / zc_buildout_dev py_265_win64 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-June/043278.html [6]FAILED winbot / zc_buildout_dev py_270_win32 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-June/043279.html [7]FAILED winbot / zc_buildout_dev py_270_win64 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-June/043280.html [8]FAILED winbot / ztk_10 py_265_win64 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-June/043270.html ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
