[Zope-dev] internal improvements to zope.component Was: ZCA summary so far...
Gary Poster wrote: [snip] I personally think these efforts do not make the potential consensus on ``adapt`` and ``utility`` methods any less interesting: they would be a concrete win for my users. I agree with much of what Gary is saying here. My ideas: * I'd like us not to make any lookup API improvements on looking up things dependent on underlying refactorings. * I'd like to see some underlying refactorings in zope.component/zope.interface. * I'd also like to see a better registration API * documenting this clearly (and perhaps in advance of any actual work) is important. * I'd like to keep zope.interface and zope.component backwards compatible and still benefit from the improvements. * Therefore, any rethink of the internals can be substantial but not so fundamental as to drop interfaces or the ideas of adaptation and utilities. * Preferably I would like these things to take place in zope.component and/or zope.interface. Experimental packages are all right, I guess, but I wouldn't want them to be permanent. Let's keep the user community together on this one, please. * I *also* would like to take a range of optional dependencies out of zope.component, however. The ZCML directive implementations in particular. * but I'd be fine if we got a better API and implemented the old APIs on top of these. * and we might eventually deprecate the old APIs. 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] internal improvements to zope.component Was: ZCA summary so far...
On Dec 3, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote: Gary Poster wrote: [snip] I personally think these efforts do not make the potential consensus on ``adapt`` and ``utility`` methods any less interesting: they would be a concrete win for my users. I agree with much of what Gary is saying here. My ideas: * I'd like us not to make any lookup API improvements on looking up things dependent on underlying refactorings. I didn't follow this until I squinted at it and came up with I'd like us not to make any API improvements on looking up things dependent on underlying refactorings. That sounds reasonable. * I'd like to see some underlying refactorings in zope.component/zope.interface. A broad agreement, but an agreement nonetheless. * I'd also like to see a better registration API I don't have that pain point ATM, but I can vaguely see where one might. * documenting this clearly (and perhaps in advance of any actual work) is important. +1 on documenting. -1 on not allowing some experiments to happen first. * I'd like to keep zope.interface and zope.component backwards compatible and still benefit from the improvements. +1 * Therefore, any rethink of the internals can be substantial but not so fundamental as to drop interfaces or the ideas of adaptation and utilities. I'm +1 on that as long as it can be rephrased to ...can be substantial but not so fundamental as to drop interfaces or the *support for* the ideas of adaptation and utilities. * Preferably I would like these things to take place in zope.component and/or zope.interface. Experimental packages are all right, I guess, but I wouldn't want them to be permanent. Let's keep the user community together on this one, please. I am interested in a package that gives the pluggable functionality I want but that does not depend on zope.component, but that zope.component can or does depend on. I am not a fan of design by committee. I do think a community (committee) often has better ideas than a single person. Certainly I feel comfortable saying that when the single person is myself. I reconcile these positions by feeling that a very small number of people should design packages initially. Then the community can take them, take them and modify them, or leave them (ideally learning from them). * I *also* would like to take a range of optional dependencies out of zope.component, however. The ZCML directive implementations in particular. I don't have that pain point ATM, but I can vaguely see where one might. * but I'd be fine if we got a better API and implemented the old APIs on top of these. * and we might eventually deprecate the old APIs. Agreed. Gary ___ 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] internal improvements to zope.component Was: ZCA summary so far...
Gary Poster wrote: On Dec 3, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote: Gary Poster wrote: [snip] I personally think these efforts do not make the potential consensus on ``adapt`` and ``utility`` methods any less interesting: they would be a concrete win for my users. I agree with much of what Gary is saying here. My ideas: * I'd like us not to make any lookup API improvements on looking up things dependent on underlying refactorings. I didn't follow this until I squinted at it and came up with I'd like us not to make any API improvements on looking up things dependent on underlying refactorings. That sounds reasonable. Sorry, that wasn't very clear. I just meant that we should improve the lookup API not waiting for underlying API changes to materialize. These processes should be decoupled. If from underlying API changes we come up with even better lookup APIs, so be it. * I'd like to see some underlying refactorings in zope.component/zope.interface. A broad agreement, but an agreement nonetheless. * I'd also like to see a better registration API I don't have that pain point ATM, but I can vaguely see where one might. Where is your pain point? * documenting this clearly (and perhaps in advance of any actual work) is important. +1 on documenting. -1 on not allowing some experiments to happen first. Sure, experiments are fine. * I'd like to keep zope.interface and zope.component backwards compatible and still benefit from the improvements. +1 * Therefore, any rethink of the internals can be substantial but not so fundamental as to drop interfaces or the ideas of adaptation and utilities. I'm +1 on that as long as it can be rephrased to ...can be substantial but not so fundamental as to drop interfaces or the *support for* the ideas of adaptation and utilities. Sure, we don't want to drop support either. :) * Preferably I would like these things to take place in zope.component and/or zope.interface. Experimental packages are all right, I guess, but I wouldn't want them to be permanent. Let's keep the user community together on this one, please. I am interested in a package that gives the pluggable functionality I want but that does not depend on zope.component, but that zope.component can or does depend on. I don't want zope.component become a shell on some other package with a better API. I know that that's often how we work, but I'd like to try to make zope.component itself that better package. I am not a fan of design by committee. I do think a community (committee) often has better ideas than a single person. Certainly I feel comfortable saying that when the single person is myself. I reconcile these positions by feeling that a very small number of people should design packages initially. Then the community can take them, take them and modify them, or leave them (ideally learning from them). I don't want this to be a take it or leave it situation. I'd like there to be some commitment to making this package work for the whole community. I do not want this to be another vision that in the end the community can't use because we still depend on zope.component. * I *also* would like to take a range of optional dependencies out of zope.component, however. The ZCML directive implementations in particular. I don't have that pain point ATM, but I can vaguely see where one might. I think Chris McDonough shares this problem, as he already forked the directive implementations. Probably grokcore.component could be a bit nicer 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] internal improvements to zope.component Was: ZCA summary so far...
On Dec 3, 2009, at 12:08 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote: Gary Poster wrote: On Dec 3, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote: Gary Poster wrote: [snip] I personally think these efforts do not make the potential consensus on ``adapt`` and ``utility`` methods any less interesting: they would be a concrete win for my users. I agree with much of what Gary is saying here. My ideas: * I'd like us not to make any lookup API improvements on looking up things dependent on underlying refactorings. I didn't follow this until I squinted at it and came up with I'd like us not to make any API improvements on looking up things dependent on underlying refactorings. That sounds reasonable. Sorry, that wasn't very clear. I just meant that we should improve the lookup API not waiting for underlying API changes to materialize. These processes should be decoupled. If from underlying API changes we come up with even better lookup APIs, so be it. Ah, I see (and I didn't before). Yes. * I'd like to see some underlying refactorings in zope.component/zope.interface. A broad agreement, but an agreement nonetheless. * I'd also like to see a better registration API I don't have that pain point ATM, but I can vaguely see where one might. Where is your pain point? There are many concerns that my interviews raised. I talked about them in my OSCON talk, and they are at the heart of my PyCon talk. You and Chris appear to share somewhere between many and all of them, between you. I don't have time for more details than that right now. ... * Therefore, any rethink of the internals can be substantial but not so fundamental as to drop interfaces or the ideas of adaptation and utilities. I'm +1 on that as long as it can be rephrased to ...can be substantial but not so fundamental as to drop interfaces or the *support for* the ideas of adaptation and utilities. Sure, we don't want to drop support either. :) My point is that I don't find net value in the names, especially adaptation, as I've said repeatedly. I don't want them to be necessary in lower-level APIs that I teach and promote. I'm happy to continue to have internals that can *support* APIs that use the adapter names. I don't want them to *use* those names. The confusion in message here I think is because of your next point, on which we disagree. * Preferably I would like these things to take place in zope.component and/or zope.interface. Experimental packages are all right, I guess, but I wouldn't want them to be permanent. Let's keep the user community together on this one, please. I am interested in a package that gives the pluggable functionality I want but that does not depend on zope.component, but that zope.component can or does depend on. I don't want zope.component become a shell on some other package with a better API. I know that that's often how we work, but I'd like to try to make zope.component itself that better package. I don't think we are at a point that debating this is worthwhile, at least from my perspective. I still want to see what of my own pain points I can remove, without the constraint you describe. I'll be better able to debate (or concede!) once I have done that. I am not a fan of design by committee. I do think a community (committee) often has better ideas than a single person. Certainly I feel comfortable saying that when the single person is myself. I reconcile these positions by feeling that a very small number of people should design packages initially. Then the community can take them, take them and modify them, or leave them (ideally learning from them). I don't want this to be a take it or leave it situation. I'd like there to be some commitment to making this package work for the whole community. I do not want this to be another vision that in the end the community can't use because we still depend on zope.component. If the community *can't* use my work, then it is wasted. I don't want that. I want it to be valuable. I especially want Launchpad to be able to use it easily, and we use a lot of Zope community packages. That said, it's a risk one takes on projects like this sometimes. I'll try to mitigate it. Gary ___ 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 )
