[Zope-dev] Zope Tests: 6 OK

2009-12-04 Thread Zope Tests Summarizer
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Thu Dec  3 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Fri Dec  4 12:00:00 2009 UTC.
There were 6 messages: 6 from Zope Tests.


Tests passed OK
---

Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux
From: Zope Tests
Date: Thu Dec  3 20:38:38 EST 2009
URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-December/013131.html

Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux
From: Zope Tests
Date: Thu Dec  3 20:40:39 EST 2009
URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-December/013132.html

Subject: OK : Zope-2.12 Python-2.6.4 : Linux
From: Zope Tests
Date: Thu Dec  3 20:42:39 EST 2009
URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-December/013133.html

Subject: OK : Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.6.4 : Linux
From: Zope Tests
Date: Thu Dec  3 20:44:39 EST 2009
URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-December/013134.html

Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.6.4 : Linux
From: Zope Tests
Date: Thu Dec  3 20:46:39 EST 2009
URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-December/013135.html

Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.4 : Linux
From: Zope Tests
Date: Thu Dec  3 20:48:39 EST 2009
URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-December/013136.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 )


Re: [Zope-dev] the ZCA API decision

2009-12-04 Thread Martijn Faassen
Thomas Lotze wrote:
[snip]
 How are we going to organise the work? Do you intend to sketch out a plan
 for action? Should everyone create their own branches and experiment for a
 while first?

I think you're the main volunteer we have to work on this, so I suggest 
you try your stuff on a branch. Once it's ready for review just post 
about it here and prod some people. :)

I'd like to see about gathering/writing some documentation and also 
integrating it into zope.component, but that can be a separate activity.

Other work like the stuff Gary and Chris have been talking about can 
proceed independently.

Looking forward to your work!

Regards,

Martijn

P.S. I most likely won't be around next week to review anything, just FYI.

___
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] the ZCA API decision

2009-12-04 Thread Martijn Faassen
Godefroid Chapelle wrote:
[snip]
 I tried to follow this discussion closely: however, I cannot say that I 
 understand if doing multi-adaptation with IFoo(bar, baz, boo) has been 
 rejected or postponed.

Multi adaptation with IFoo(foo, bar) is off the agenda. Whether that 
means a permanent rejection or a postponement depends on the future.

Regards,

Martijn

___
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] the ZCA API decision

2009-12-04 Thread Martijn Faassen
Martin Aspeli wrote:
 Martijn Faassen wrote:
 Hi there,

 I think we've had enough discussion to make a decision.
 
 I'm a little worried that neither Stephan Richter, nor Jim Fulton have 
 had much weight in on this. They seem like important stakeholders. :)

Stephan has chipped in on this discussion several time and my impression 
is that he's okay with this.

As for Jim, I know in an earlier discussion last year or so that he was 
all right with some work being done on this.

 I'd give them a week or so at least... this is deep stuff. ;)

I'd say proceed with the implementation on a branch right now. I would 
imagine any objections could still be handled before merging the work.

Regards,

Martijn

___
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] the ZCA API decision

2009-12-04 Thread Martijn Faassen
Thomas Lotze wrote:
[snip]
 I'd be happy to lead this effort, if you like to put it like that. I
 wouldn't want to take it out of Martijn's hands, though, unless he's happy
 with it as well, given that he's the one who started the discussion.

By all means take the lead on the implementation. :)

Regards,

Martijn

___
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] the ZCA API decision

2009-12-04 Thread Martijn Faassen
Brian Sutherland wrote:
 On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 03:11:07PM -0700, Shane Hathaway wrote:
 Godefroid Chapelle wrote:
 I tried to follow this discussion closely: however, I cannot say that I 
 understand if doing multi-adaptation with IFoo(bar, baz, boo) has been 
 rejected or postponed.
 AFAICT, the decision to reject or postpone that has been postponed. :-)
 
 While taking steps now to soften the backwards compatibility issues for
 that future decision.

Yes, but luckily that step can be motivated quite well from a code 
readability perspective too. :)

Regards,

Martijn


___
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] the ZCA API decision

2009-12-04 Thread Christian Theune
Hi,

On 12/03/2009 06:41 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
 Hi there,

 I think we've had enough discussion to make a decision. Hopefully
 everybody is at least reasonably happy with this:

 An adapt() method will be added to Interface. It takes the objects to
 adapt as *args, and optional but explicit 'default' and 'name' aguments.

 A utility() method will be added to Interface. It takes optional but
 explicit 'default' and 'name' arguments.

 On the adapter hook (__call__) we will deprecate the implicit second
 argument for defaults, with a deprecation warning. Instead, we will
 require people to write out 'default=' explicitly. Otherwise its
 behavior remains unchanged. I think we can motivate this change purely
 because IFoo(bar, baz) really is quite surprising compared to IFoo(bar,
 default=baz).

 [steering group members, if you are really unhappy with this, please
 speak up now. Silence is assent. :)]

I'm assenting loudly as I'm happy to see progress on this issue.

Christian

-- 
Christian Theune · c...@gocept.com
gocept gmbh  co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany
http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 0 · fax +49 345 1229889 1
Zope and Plone consulting and development

___
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] the ZCA API decision

2009-12-04 Thread Thomas Lotze
Gary Poster wrote:

 I would think we would want to follow the pattern of the adapter_hooks in
 zope.interface.interface, including the C optimizations.

Speaking of adapter hooks: If I'm not completely mistaken, adapter hooks
know about exactly one object to be adapted. To follow the pattern of
adapter hooks in the implementation of our new lookup methods, we need
hooks that handle zero, one or more objects instead.

We could work with a second set of hooks in order to keep the existing
ones untouched, but that would require every user of the hooks feature to
implement both kinds of hooks. We could also change the signature of
adapter hooks, which would be backwards-incompatible, either with tuple
adaptation or with named adapters (since the name is the first keyword
argument for adapter hooks).

So I'd like to hear opinions: Would a backwards-incompatible change to
adapter hooks be acceptable, considering that this wouldn't be visible to
users of the component architecture but only to implementors of component
frameworks like zope.component?

-- 
Thomas



___
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] the ZCA API decision

2009-12-04 Thread Jim Fulton
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com wrote:
 Martin Aspeli wrote:
 Martijn Faassen wrote:
 Hi there,

 I think we've had enough discussion to make a decision.

 I'm a little worried that neither Stephan Richter, nor Jim Fulton have
 had much weight in on this. They seem like important stakeholders. :)

 Stephan has chipped in on this discussion several time and my impression
 is that he's okay with this.

 As for Jim, I know in an earlier discussion last year or so that he was
 all right with some work being done on this.

I'm fine with the final outcome (IFoo.adapt(...), IFoo.utility(...), and moving
toward requiring default as kw arg in IFoo()).

Jim

-- 
Jim Fulton
___
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 )