Hey,
Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
I suggest:
- decide on and advertise the new interface
- continue to do look ups the way we do now
- update relevant zcml directives (view, page, resource. etc.) to use
the new interface
+1
Update the relevant grokkers to use the new interface too. :)
Hey,
One question is what to do for persistent registrations in local sites.
I don't imagine they're used a lot, but it'd mean a content upgrade to
re-register them, right?
Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
Martijn Faassen wrote:
One question is what to do for persistent registrations in local sites.
I don't imagine they're used a lot, but it'd mean a content upgrade to
re-register them, right?
The only piece of software that, to my knowledge, can actually *make*
local view registrations is
Malthe Borch wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
There's one major problem that I see. What's the backwards
compatibility story? I'm sure there are a lot of cases in lots of code
where people look up views with a getMultiAdapter, and if we started
registering views differently, wouldn't that code
David Glick wrote:
On Jun 18, 2008, at 1:44 PM, Malthe Borch wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
There's one major problem that I see. What's the backwards
compatibility story? I'm sure there are a lot of cases in lots of
code where people look up views with a getMultiAdapter, and if we
started
On Jun 19, 2008, at 9:37 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
David Glick wrote:
On Jun 18, 2008, at 1:44 PM, Malthe Borch wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
There's one major problem that I see. What's the backwards
compatibility story? I'm sure there are a lot of cases in lots of
code where
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 09:46:35AM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
I suggest:
- decide on and advertise the new interface
- continue to do look ups the way we do now
- update relevant zcml directives (view, page, resource. etc.) to use
the new interface
- issue informative deprecation
On Jun 19, 2008, at 10:46 AM, Christian Theune wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 09:46:35AM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
I suggest:
- decide on and advertise the new interface
- continue to do look ups the way we do now
- update relevant zcml directives (view, page, resource. etc.) to use
the new
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 10:50:00AM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
Would it be reasonable to also issue a warning if someone does a
lookup for
Interface?
No, because clients have to look up using Interface as long as the
component they need might be registered with it.
Is that an argument for
On Jun 19, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Christian Theune wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 10:50:00AM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
Would it be reasonable to also issue a warning if someone does a
lookup for
Interface?
No, because clients have to look up using Interface as long as the
component they need
Hi there,
Malthe Borch wrote:
[snip]
I suggest we then register views as components providing
``zope.component.IView``; browser views should provide
``zope.publisher.interfaces.browser.IBrowserView``.
I think this would improve things, and thanks for bringing this up.
There's one major
Martijn Faassen wrote:
There's one major problem that I see. What's the backwards compatibility
story? I'm sure there are a lot of cases in lots of code where people
look up views with a getMultiAdapter, and if we started registering
views differently, wouldn't that code break? How to we get
On Jun 18, 2008, at 1:44 PM, Malthe Borch wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
There's one major problem that I see. What's the backwards
compatibility story? I'm sure there are a lot of cases in lots of
code where people look up views with a getMultiAdapter, and if we
started registering views
Christian Theune wrote:
I don't think zope.component wants to know about views. The interface should
be in a package that already knows about views.
I agree it's an inappropriate location, however, zope.component *does*
define an ``IView`` interface as it is (zope.component.bbb.interfaces).
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Jun 18, 2008, at 4:31 PM, Malthe Borch wrote:
Currently views are registered as components providing
zope.interface.Interface; this is unfortunate since other kinds of
components may use the same specification, namely (context, request).
Right. This is a historical
Malthe Borch wrote:
Currently views are registered as components providing
zope.interface.Interface; this is unfortunate since other kinds of
components may use the same specification, namely (context, request).
An example of this is ``IAbsoluteURL``; it clashes with the resources
view*.
16 matches
Mail list logo
