Hello,
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Jonathan Ballet
jonathan.bal...@securactive.net wrote:
Hello Christian,
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Christian Theune c...@gocept.com wrote:
[...] btw: do you log the seed if
you generated one?)
Yep, the seed is displayed at the end of tests, so
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Sun Nov 22 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Mon Nov 23 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: Sun Nov 22 20:38:38 EST 2009
URL:
Hi there,
On 11/23/2009 10:27 AM, Jonathan Ballet wrote:
Hello,
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Jonathan Ballet
jonathan.bal...@securactive.net wrote:
Hello Christian,
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Christian Theunec...@gocept.com wrote:
[...] btw: do you log the seed if
you
We've been handling some constructive criticisms from repoze.bfg developers
with respect to verbosity resulting from use of unnamed utility registrations
in a component architecture registry.
These criticisms, and our ameliorations are detailed here:
Hi Chris,
On 2009-11-24, at 0324, Chris McDonough wrote:
In repoze.bfg, we've actually decided to use a subclass of the
component
registry which also inherits from dict. This makes it possible to
spell
common unnamed utility registrations and lookups as:
utility =
Matthew Wilkes wrote:
Hi Chris,
On 2009-11-24, at 0324, Chris McDonough wrote:
In repoze.bfg, we've actually decided to use a subclass of the component
registry which also inherits from dict. This makes it possible to
spell
common unnamed utility registrations and lookups as:
utility
You may have Zope Component Developer's Eyes, a common disease in
these parts. ;-)
The goggles, they do nothing.
Under the hood, the system does something like this when a root
factory needs to be registered:
from repoze.bfg.interfaces import IRootFactory
from zope.component import
Hi Chris,
In repoze.bfg, we've actually decided to use a subclass of the component
registry which also inherits from dict. This makes it possible to
spell
common unnamed utility registrations and lookups as:
utility = SomeUtilityImplementation()
registry['someutility'] = utility
I
Matthew Wilkes wrote:
Right, but I think mixing the two is just going to be confusing. Your
alternative spelling may well be useful, but only if it works within
the confines of the ZCA itself, otherwise you're just hijacking the
component root for your own (nefarious) purposes.
The
Matthew Wilkes wrote:
In a system like this, there are no interfaces; the string
'root_factory' performs the same job as the IRootFactory interface for
registration and lookup. I'd like to make the ZCA registry operate
like this. There's really no reason for there to be an interface
Chris McDonough wrote:
A lookup keyed entirely on strings and not interfaces is perfectly
possible using the ZCA, just register your utility to provide
z.i.Interface and name it. Your semantics are the same as the simple
dictionary use-case, but it doesn't force people to choose one means
Martin Aspeli wrote:
We need to make sure that we're not inventing a different way to achieve
something which is already possible. This will lead to confusion,
because people will have to know which way is applicable in a given
situation, and the distinction will seem arbitrary.
I fear we
Chris McDonough wrote:
Off the top of my head, another way to think of this *might* be to say
that the 'dict access' is basically looking up a *named* utility
providing a very generic marker interface, e.g.
zope.component.interfaces.IUtility or even just
zope.interface.Interface. That
Hi Chris,
Chris McDonough wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
We need to make sure that we're not inventing a different way to achieve
something which is already possible. This will lead to confusion,
because people will have to know which way is applicable in a given
situation, and the
Chris McDonough wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
Off the top of my head, another way to think of this *might* be to say
that the 'dict access' is basically looking up a *named* utility
providing a very generic marker interface, e.g.
zope.component.interfaces.IUtility or even just
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Hi Chris,
Chris McDonough wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
We need to make sure that we're not inventing a different way to achieve
something which is already possible. This will lead to confusion,
because people will have to know which way is applicable in a given
Matthew Wilkes wrote:
On 2009-11-24, at 0521, Chris McDonough wrote:
I don't think I understand. Could you provide an example?
Sure!
I think this is the same thing that Martin suggested, but here's some
code which should make it clearer.
First, we create an object that we want to
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Meh, I just remembered that I tried this. The current implementation
requires
that the name value be a literal string object (or at least something
convertable to Unicode). I think we could relax this requirement; it really
only needs to be hashable. I wouldn't
Chris McDonough wrote:
Thanks. Yup. I would be +1 on this if the registry itself implemented
IDictInterface.
If that was untenable, if all the above code lived in the zope.component
package itself, and you had an API that manifested an IDictInterface object
when you asked for a
Chris McDonough wrote:
OK after rereading this, I think we may be massively overthinking this. The
above is getting kinda silly. I can't think of a use case where being able
to
alternate between:
reg.utils['root_factory']
and
reg.getUtility(IAnonymousUtility,
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Could maybe we instead just do:
class Components(object):
def __init__(self, name='', bases=()):
self.utils = {}
This would be faster, simpler to document, and would require exactly one
line
of code.
Except at this point we've lost all the
21 matches
Mail list logo
