Re: [Zope-dev] Re: View component registration
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 people look up views with a getMultiAdapter, and if we started registering views differently, wouldn't that code break? How to we get from A to B? It deserves consideration, but I don't think code will be prone to break since we're merely providing more information to lookup a view component, not less. Exactly. The interface passed to getMultiAdapter or queryMultiAdapter is a minimum requirement. Making views provide IView won't stop them from providing Interface, which is the default. Well, true, view *lookup* for Interface will still work if we register views for a more specific interface. But if Zope's browser publication now starts looking up views with the more specific interface and there are still views around that haven't been registered for that but for Interface, we'll run into backward compatibility problems. I suppose the browser publication would have to be smart about it and do a legacy lookup for Interface if it can't find a view for the specific one. Either way, it's not *that* simple... 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 warnings when we register adapters providing Interface. - Later, switch to looking up using the new interface. Maybe make this an application option so that people can choose to use the new interface sooner. Jim -- Jim Fulton Zope Corporation ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: View component registration
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 warnings when we register adapters providing Interface. - Later, switch to looking up using the new interface. Maybe make this an application option so that people can choose to use the new interface sooner. +1 Would it be reasonable to also issue a warning if someone does a lookup for Interface? Christian -- Christian Theune · [EMAIL PROTECTED] gocept gmbh co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 7 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: View component registration
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 interface - issue informative deprecation warnings when we register adapters providing Interface. - Later, switch to looking up using the new interface. Maybe make this an application option so that people can choose to use the new interface sooner. +1 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. Jim -- Jim Fulton Zope Corporation ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: View component registration
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 a grace period? I wondered about the case in general or in the long run. -- Christian Theune · [EMAIL PROTECTED] gocept gmbh co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 7 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: View component registration
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 might be registered with it. Is that an argument for a grace period? I wondered about the case in general or in the long run. The grace period. Jim -- Jim Fulton Zope Corporation ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: View component registration
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 differently, wouldn't that code break? How to we get from A to B? It deserves consideration, but I don't think code will be prone to break since we're merely providing more information to lookup a view component, not less. Exactly. The interface passed to getMultiAdapter or queryMultiAdapter is a minimum requirement. Making views provide IView won't stop them from providing Interface, which is the default. On a somewhat related matter, it would be great if the browser:page ZCML directive could be augmented to have a provides= attribute, so that even more specific categories of views can be marked. E.g. for Malthe's Collage add-on for Plone, which does page compositing, we want to look up a named view on an object, but only if the view provides ICollageView. David Glick Project Associate ONE/Northwest New tools and strategies for engaging people in protecting the environment http://www.onenw.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] (206) 286-1235 x32 Subscribe to ONEList, our email newsletter! Practical advice for effective online engagement http://www.onenw.org/full_signup ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
