On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:17:41PM +0100, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
Hmm, I may be missing something here, but if Foo implements IFoo, then
the getAdapter lookup for it will short circuit, leading you into
infinite
Charlie Clark wrote:
[snip]
So adapters are reduced to type conversion?
Adaptation is give me something that provides this API for this
object. Conversion in Python asks the same. Adaption just formalizes
this and generalizes it. I don't see how it's a reduction.
Calling an interface is
Chris McDonough wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
I have very much
come to appreciate the power of this delegation in, say, BrowserViews;
even if it did take me several months to understand the multiadapter
pattern!
I hear this a lot, so this is apparently something that is common to
take a
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Multi-adaptation:
IFoo(one, two)
Please note that this will break an incredible amount of code in the
wild. A good number of my packages do something like this:
foo = IFoo(context, None)
if foo is None:
...
Yes, that this
Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
* Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com [2009-11-27 12:32]:
Would people be okay with such an upgrade path? Any better ideas?
Yes, I'm okay with it. I do think we should take care that the
transition period is long enough, so that people have a chance to update
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Sun Nov 29 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Mon Nov 30 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 29 20:38:22 EST 2009
URL:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Multi-adaptation:
IFoo(one, two)
Please note that this will break an incredible amount of code in the
wild. A good number of my packages do something like this:
foo = IFoo(context, None)
if foo is None:
I find it rather odd that we're wasting so much time worrying about
backward incompatibility when we have a perfect mechanism to introduce
backward incompatible changes in a way that allows both flavours to be
used by packages in the same application (on a module by module basis
just like Martijn
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com
wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
This implies we don't want to release zope.component 4.0 for a long time
yet.
I think the answer should be never. :)
I think never is a rather long time. I'd
On 11/30/09 13:43 , Hanno Schlichting wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Martin Aspelioptilude+li...@gmail.com
wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
This implies we don't want to release zope.component 4.0 for a long time
yet.
I think the answer should be never. :)
I think never is a
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.net wrote:
We could also say that we will clean up the API when we move to Python
3. That is a natural breaking point anyway, so it will not any extra
pain for users of the ZCA.
Except that is precisely what the Python developers
On 11/30/09 14:45 , Hanno Schlichting wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Wichert Akkermanwich...@wiggy.net wrote:
We could also say that we will clean up the API when we move to Python
3. That is a natural breaking point anyway, so it will not any extra
pain for users of the ZCA.
On Friday 27 November 2009, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Are people okay with the proposed semantics?
Would people be okay with such an upgrade path? Any better ideas?
Looks good.
Note: We had Thanks Giving over the weekend, so please allow more US people,
like Jim, to comment before finalizing
On Nov 30, 2009, at 4:05 AM, Brian Sutherland wrote:
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:17:41PM +0100, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
Hmm, I may be missing something here, but if Foo implements IFoo, then
the getAdapter lookup for
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.net wrote:
We could also say that we will clean up the API when we move to Python
3. That is a natural breaking point anyway, so it will not any extra
pain for users of the ZCA.
Except that is precisely
On Nov 27, 2009, at 6:32 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
Introduction
So now that we've had some discussion and to exit the bikeshed phase,
Wow. That's abrupt, for something at the root of the entire stack.
I don't think long emails are very effective, but I'm not
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
That's why I think it's important to have a:
* a zope.component 3.x that supports both patterns
* a per-module way to indicate whether the new API should be used.
Sorry, I just don't buy it. The *moment* someone requires = 4.0, you're
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gary Poster wrote:
On Nov 27, 2009, at 6:32 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Utility lookups versus adapter lookups
--
There was some discussion on whether utility lookups are really
something fundamentally
Leonardo Rochael Almeida wrote:
I find it rather odd that we're wasting so much time worrying about
backward incompatibility when we have a perfect mechanism to introduce
backward incompatible changes in a way that allows both flavours to be
used by packages in the same application (on a
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 16:39, Charlie Clark
The
most common example I know of the syntax is with INameChooser() which
brings us back to the differences (real or imaginary) between utilities
and adapters.
I agree that calling an interface like that is a strange
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tres Seaver wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
On Nov 27, 2009, at 6:32 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Utility lookups versus adapter lookups
--
There was some discussion on whether utility lookups are really
something
Hi Michael
I just implemented z3c.authviewlet and moved the
authentication viewlet part from z3c.layer.pagelet
into this new package. The z3c.layer.pagelet package
does not use the z3c.authviewlet package as a dependency.
This means you need to include the z3c.authviewlet
package in your
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Friday 27 November 2009, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Are people okay with the proposed semantics?
Would people be okay with such an upgrade path? Any better ideas?
Looks good.
Note: We had Thanks Giving over the weekend, so please allow more US people,
like Jim, to
Hey,
[Python 3 discussions]
I think discussions about Python 3 and changing the API then should be
tabled in this thread. We're talking about a timeline where the first
steps will take place in the next few months. Realistic small steps,
please. (just like we'll need realistic small steps
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Friday 27 November 2009, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Are people okay with the proposed semantics?
Would people be okay with such an upgrade path? Any better ideas?
Looks good.
Note: We had Thanks
Hey,
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
[snip]
We could also say that we will clean up the API when we move to Python
3. That is a natural breaking point anyway, so it will not any extra
pain for users of the ZCA.
In my opinion, that would be the absolute worst possible moment.
Motivation:
On Monday 30 November 2009, Martijn Faassen wrote:
* we can then allow tuple adaptation again. :)
Tuple adaption was also really important to the Twisted guys. We should
consult them to see whether they are still using zope.component and whether
they are still adapting tuples.
Regards,
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com wrote:
Leonardo Rochael Almeida wrote:
* Use a different package name!
We don't have that option, as we're talking about changing the behavior
of calling IFoo.
It's very well possible. You create a new distribution
Hey,
Gary Poster wrote:
On Nov 27, 2009, at 6:32 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
So now that we've had some discussion and to exit the bikeshed
phase,
Wow. That's abrupt, for something at the root of the entire stack.
I realize now that exiting the bikeshed phase was premature. Then
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Monday 30 November 2009, Martijn Faassen wrote:
* we can then allow tuple adaptation again. :)
Tuple adaption was also really important to the Twisted guys. We should
consult them to see whether they are still using zope.component and whether
they are still
Tres Seaver wrote:
[snip]
Do we really have a significant codebase which both needs to adapt
tuples *and* uses the interface-calling sugar?
I hope not. That's why I walk all over it breaking backwards
compatibility in this plan.
We'd need to live with IFoo((a, b)) for a few years as opposed
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com
wrote:
Leonardo Rochael Almeida wrote:
* Use a different package name!
We don't have that option, as we're talking about changing the behavior
of calling IFoo.
It's very well possible. You
On Nov 30, 2009, at 11:51 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gary Poster wrote:
On Nov 27, 2009, at 6:32 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Utility lookups versus adapter lookups
--
There was some
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 08:40, Wolfgang Schnerring w...@gocept.com wrote:
Thus, we should not start requiring zope.component 4.0 everywhere
immediately (because it's new, great and shiny ;), but rather use
3.9+future when we want to use the new semantics, and only after I don't
know, 6 months
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Given some feedback about backwards compatibility, I'm leaning to the
following adjusted scenario:
* allow IFoo((a, b)) for multi adaptation. This breaks tuple adaptation.
It's not as pretty as IFoo(a, b), but it's pretty tolerable and it *is*
actually symmetric
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 19:16, Shane Hathaway sh...@hathawaymix.org wrote:
If adding lookup() is a good idea
Possibly, but it sound like you are looking up (a), when in fact you
are adapting it. :) Maye IFoo.adapt(a) ?
--
Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok
http://regebro.wordpress.com/
Am Montag 30 November 2009 16:57:11 schrieb Gary Poster:
As above, I disagree.
As a matter of mechanics, when you register something we call an adapter,
it is a callable that takes one or more arguments. If we were going to
follow the pattern that Marius laid out to establish what
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 19:16, Shane Hathaway sh...@hathawaymix.org wrote:
If adding lookup() is a good idea
Possibly, but it sound like you are looking up (a), when in fact you
are adapting it. :) Maye IFoo.adapt(a) ?
+1, IFoo.adapt() is better, along with
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Given some feedback about backwards compatibility, I'm leaning to the
following adjusted scenario:
* allow IFoo((a, b)) for multi adaptation. This breaks tuple adaptation.
It's not as pretty as IFoo(a, b), but it's pretty tolerable and it *is*
On Nov 30, 2009, at 1:51 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
Shane Hathaway wrote:
...a good general argument, that Chris seemed to agree with and expand upon,
and that has some merit to me.
What do you think?
+ 1 with the following caveat:
I think that method name should probably be adapt;
On Nov 30, 2009, at 11:47 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey,
Gary Poster wrote:
On Nov 27, 2009, at 6:32 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
...snipping here and elsewhere without further warning...
Utility lookup:
IFoo()
Named utility lookup:
IFoo(name=foo)
Utility lookup with a
Am 30.11.2009, 20:24 Uhr, schrieb Gary Poster gary.pos...@gmail.com:
1) I very much like the idea of some helpers hanging around. However,
my current belief is that the factory methods ought to be callable
objects that allow introspection of the underlying registry. That's
where the
On Nov 30, 2009, at 2:24 PM, Gary Poster wrote:
3) I also think that utility is a bad name. Is singleton two letters too
long?
Yes and not because singleton is longer.
It just a bad name.
:-)
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
On Nov 30, 2009, at 4:05 PM, Zvezdan Petkovic wrote:
On Nov 30, 2009, at 2:24 PM, Gary Poster wrote:
3) I also think that utility is a bad name. Is singleton two letters
too long?
Yes and not because singleton is longer.
It just a bad name.
:-)
To clarify because of
1. the
On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:49 PM, Charlie Clark wrote:
Am 30.11.2009, 20:24 Uhr, schrieb Gary Poster gary.pos...@gmail.com:
1) I very much like the idea of some helpers hanging around. However,
my current belief is that the factory methods ought to be callable
objects that allow
On Nov 30, 2009, at 4:13 PM, Zvezdan Petkovic wrote:
On Nov 30, 2009, at 4:05 PM, Zvezdan Petkovic wrote:
On Nov 30, 2009, at 2:24 PM, Gary Poster wrote:
3) I also think that utility is a bad name. Is singleton two letters
too long?
Yes and not because singleton is longer.
It just
On Nov 30, 2009, at 4:40 PM, Gary Poster wrote:
Put yet another way, how are 99+% of our utility usages not singletons?
Therein lies the problem.
Singletons are singletons in 100% of cases.
Since utilities are not singletons in 100% of cases they are not singletons by
definition.
If that's
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com wrote:
True. For me utilities are tools. Like CMFs portal_whatever. But in
Zope3 even small stupid singleton objects are utilities in some cases,
and that is confusing for a beginner.
I wonder how many typical Python
Gary Poster wrote:
Then to the multiadapter concern I raised, all my real-world examples
of adapters are to adapt one object so it can be used in a certain
way (to integrate with another kind of object). Power adapters, for
instance, adapt a plug (required interface) so it can plugged in to
On Nov 30, 2009, at 5:14 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 22:40, Gary Poster gary.pos...@gmail.com wrote:
Then to the multiadapter concern I raised, all my real-world examples of
adapters are to adapt one object so it can be used in a certain way (to
integrate with
Martijn Faassen wrote:
The most elegant backwards compatible solution would be multi adaptation
using a tuple. I think 'name' can probably also be added to the adapter
hook without breaking stuff. People adapting tuples will need an
explicit way to do so. It's still backwards incompatible,
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Friday 27 November 2009, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Are people okay with the proposed semantics?
Would people be okay with such an upgrade path? Any better ideas?
Looks good.
Note: We had Thanks Giving over the weekend, so please allow more US
Gary Poster wrote:
On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:49 PM, Charlie Clark wrote:
Then to the multiadapter concern I raised, all my real-world examples of
adapters are to adapt one object so it can be used in a certain way (to
integrate with another kind of object). Power adapters, for instance, adapt
53 matches
Mail list logo
