Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-12-03 Thread Marius Gedminas
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 07:44:54AM +0100, Christian Theune wrote: That reminds me that I had the occasional wish to invoke the ZCA using some kind of chaining mechanism so that an adapter can ask for the next less specific adapter that would have been invoked if the former wasn't there. The

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-12-02 Thread Christian Theune
On 11/30/2009 10:05 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 Seavertsea...@palladion.com wrote: Hmm, I may be missing something here, but if Foo implements IFoo, then the getAdapter lookup for it will

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-30 Thread Brian Sutherland
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

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-30 Thread Gary Poster
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

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-29 Thread Martin Aspeli
Tim Hoffman wrote: Just re-inforcing this I almost never do IFoo. adaption as I am almost always using multiadapters and utilities so I completely forget about the IFoo adaption capability. Which means I always just write getAdapter as well as it seems more consistent to from an api

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-28 Thread Lennart Regebro
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 16:41, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com wrote: As a final thought, I don't like having to import 'implements' from zope.interface either. Since we're moving to Python 2.6 which supports class decorators, I'd like to see something like this become possible:

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-28 Thread Martijn Faassen
Chris McDonough wrote: Martijn Faassen wrote: Hey, Christian Theune wrote: [snip] Another option would be to provide a backwards-compatibility mode of our code which can be switched on and off. Your notion of bringing the component lookup mechanics closer to being a language feature is

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-28 Thread Chris McDonough
Martijn Faassen wrote: I'd be in favor of an API based off calling the interface directly for everything *if* we can come up with a backwards compatibility story somehow. Just as a data point, I forgot to hook adapter_hook in BFG (and I still haven't), which means that the IFoo() sugar

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-28 Thread Tim Hoffman
Just re-inforcing this I almost never do IFoo. adaption as I am almost always using multiadapters and utilities so I completely forget about the IFoo adaption capability. Which means I always just write getAdapter as well as it seems more consistent to from an api consumption point of view. T

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-27 Thread Matthias Lehmann
Am Mittwoch 25 November 2009 17:54:53 schrieb Chris McDonough: Gary Poster wrote: FWIW, I'm saying that utilities and adapters are different. I share your/Martijn's/other people's general thoughts about merging adapters and multiadapters in the interface __call__ syntax. There might

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-27 Thread Martijn Faassen
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 recursion. Except that it doesn't: [snip

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-27 Thread Martijn Faassen
Hey, Christian Theune wrote: [snip] Another option would be to provide a backwards-compatibility mode of our code which can be switched on and off. Your notion of bringing the component lookup mechanics closer to being a language feature is very intriguing and I like it a lot. However, if

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-27 Thread Marius Gedminas
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:09:35AM -0500, Benji York wrote: On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Leonardo Rochael Almeida leoroch...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 14:34, Benji York be...@zope.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Matthew Wilkes I know it's probably a spurious

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-27 Thread Chris McDonough
Martijn Faassen wrote: Hey, Christian Theune wrote: [snip] Another option would be to provide a backwards-compatibility mode of our code which can be switched on and off. Your notion of bringing the component lookup mechanics closer to being a language feature is very intriguing and I

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-26 Thread Martijn Faassen
Thomas Lotze wrote: Martijn Faassen wrote: Thomas Lotze wrote: [snip] What about a simple and consistent API for all components including utilities, adapters and multiadapters: IFoo() IFoo(x) IFoo(x, y) The last one won't work if we want to maintain backwards compatibility. The

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-26 Thread Martijn Faassen
Wolfgang Schnerring wrote: * On Nov 25, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Thomas Lotze wrote: What about a simple and consistent API for all components including utilities, adapters and multiadapters: IFoo() IFoo(x) IFoo(x, y) I quite like the simplicity of this spelling, so I want to be sure *why* it

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-26 Thread Thomas Lotze
Martijn Faassen wrote: Thomas Lotze wrote: You didn't explicitly mention the subject of backwards compatibility in your original message, so let's make it explicit now: Is backwards compatibility a goal in this discussion? True. It's indeed a goal, as I'd like to be able to use this sooner

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-26 Thread Shane Hathaway
Martijn Faassen wrote: But someone needs to think of a feasible upgrade scenario. We could instrument all calls to IFoo and see whether a default argument is in use, but what then? I'd be hard to distinguish a default argument from one we're meant to adapt. I'd also be non-trivial to scan

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-26 Thread Benji York
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Matthew Wilkes matt...@matthewwilkes.co.uk wrote: On 2009-11-25, at 1601, Benji York wrote: I'm not sure I like the following suggestion better than the above, but throwing it out there anyway: Multiadapter: IFoo((x,y)) I know it's probably a spurious

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-26 Thread Leonardo Rochael Almeida
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 14:34, Benji York be...@zope.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Matthew Wilkes matt...@matthewwilkes.co.uk wrote: On 2009-11-25, at 1601, Benji York wrote: I'm not sure I like the following suggestion better than the above, but throwing it out there anyway:

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-26 Thread Benji York
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Leonardo Rochael Almeida leoroch...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 14:34, Benji York be...@zope.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Matthew Wilkes I know it's probably a spurious use case, but what if I want to adapt a tuple? There could be

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-26 Thread Martijn Faassen
Shane Hathaway wrote: [I talk about backwards compatibility issues with some proposed API changes, but this modification doesn't have this issue] Here is an interface decorator I intend to try out soon. It adds convenient component lookup methods to a particular interface without requiring

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-26 Thread Martijn Faassen
Thomas Lotze wrote: [snip] Then let me suggest not changing the call signature of an interface at all but only add one or a few new methods. Firstly, this will keep backwards compatibility even with code that adapts a tuple, and secondly, it allows us to implement a simple and consistent API

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-26 Thread Thomas Lotze
Martijn Faassen wrote: Thomas Lotze wrote: [snip] Then let me suggest not changing the call signature of an interface at all but only add one or a few new methods. Firstly, this will keep backwards compatibility even with code that adapts a tuple, and secondly, it allows us to implement a

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-26 Thread Christian Theune
On 11/25/2009 08:51 PM, Fabio Tranchitella wrote: * 2009-11-25 19:35, Tres Seaver wrote: IFoo() IFoo(x) IFoo(x, y) You can't use an arbitrary number of positional arguments for the contexts, because we need to support the named / default cases too. I'm probably saying something very

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-26 Thread Christian Theune
On 11/26/2009 10:48 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote: Thomas Lotze wrote: Martijn Faassen wrote: Thomas Lotze wrote: [snip] What about a simple and consistent API for all components including utilities, adapters and multiadapters: IFoo() IFoo(x) IFoo(x, y) I like the interface being called to

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-26 Thread Tres Seaver
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Christian Theune wrote: On 11/25/2009 08:51 PM, Fabio Tranchitella wrote: * 2009-11-25 19:35, Tres Seaver wrote: IFoo() IFoo(x) IFoo(x, y) You can't use an arbitrary number of positional arguments for the contexts, because we need to support

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Benji York
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com wrote: [snip good stuff] Multiadapter: IFoo.multi(x, y) I'm not sure I like the following suggestion better than the above, but throwing it out there anyway: Multiadapter: IFoo((x,y)) Multiadapter with default:

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Matthew Wilkes
On 2009-11-25, at 1601, Benji York wrote: I'm not sure I like the following suggestion better than the above, but throwing it out there anyway: Multiadapter: IFoo((x,y)) I know it's probably a spurious use case, but what if I want to adapt a tuple? Matt

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Gary Poster
On Nov 25, 2009, at 10:41 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote: ... Thoughts? FWIW, this mirrors some of the thoughts I've had, after a lot of discussions with Launchpad/Canonical engineers about the pros and cons of the Zope interface and component code. My OSCON presentation touched on some of these

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Thomas Lotze
Martijn Faassen wrote: Adapter: IFoo(x) [...] Multiadapter: IFoo.multi(x, y) [...] Utility: IFoo.utility() [or possibly IFoo() instead?] What about a simple and consistent API for all components including utilities, adapters and multiadapters: IFoo() IFoo(x) IFoo(x, y) I

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Gary Poster
On Nov 25, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Thomas Lotze wrote: Martijn Faassen wrote: Adapter: IFoo(x) [...] Multiadapter: IFoo.multi(x, y) [...] Utility: IFoo.utility() [or possibly IFoo() instead?] What about a simple and consistent API for all components including

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Thomas Lotze
Gary Poster wrote: On Nov 25, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Thomas Lotze wrote: What about a simple and consistent API for all components including utilities, adapters and multiadapters: IFoo() IFoo(x) IFoo(x, y) I seem to remember there had been some discussion at some point about dropping

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Gary Poster
On Nov 25, 2009, at 11:34 AM, Thomas Lotze wrote: Gary Poster wrote: On Nov 25, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Thomas Lotze wrote: What about a simple and consistent API for all components including utilities, adapters and multiadapters: IFoo() IFoo(x) IFoo(x, y) I seem to remember there

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Chris McDonough
Gary Poster wrote: FWIW, I'm saying that utilities and adapters are different. I share your/Martijn's/other people's general thoughts about merging adapters and multiadapters in the interface __call__ syntax. There might should be more obvious APIs for just *retrieving* an adapter based

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Gary Poster
On Nov 25, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Chris McDonough wrote: Gary Poster wrote: FWIW, I'm saying that utilities and adapters are different. I share your/Martijn's/other people's general thoughts about merging adapters and multiadapters in the interface __call__ syntax. There might should be

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Chris McDonough
Chris McDonough wrote: There might should be more obvious APIs for just *retrieving* an adapter based on a set of interfaces; it's useful to be able to retrieve an adapter without invoking it. Currently this is possible via registry.adapters.loookup, which is fine. And I know it's

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Tres Seaver
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Benji York wrote: On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com wrote: [snip good stuff] Multiadapter: IFoo.multi(x, y) I'm not sure I like the following suggestion better than the above, but throwing it out

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Tres Seaver
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Matthew Wilkes wrote: On 2009-11-25, at 1601, Benji York wrote: I'm not sure I like the following suggestion better than the above, but throwing it out there anyway: Multiadapter: IFoo((x,y)) I know it's probably a spurious use case,

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Tres Seaver
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Gary Poster wrote: On Nov 25, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Thomas Lotze wrote: Martijn Faassen wrote: Adapter: IFoo(x) [...] Multiadapter: IFoo.multi(x, y) [...] Utility: IFoo.utility() [or possibly IFoo() instead?] What about a simple and

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Fabio Tranchitella
* 2009-11-25 19:35, Tres Seaver wrote: IFoo() IFoo(x) IFoo(x, y) You can't use an arbitrary number of positional arguments for the contexts, because we need to support the named / default cases too. I'm probably saying something very stupid... What's wrong with the it? Can't we define

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Marius Gedminas
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 01:29:25PM -0500, Tres Seaver wrote: Matthew Wilkes wrote: On 2009-11-25, at 1601, Benji York wrote: I'm not sure I like the following suggestion better than the above, but throwing it out there anyway: Multiadapter: IFoo((x,y)) I know it's probably a

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Brian Sutherland
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 05:17:17PM +0100, Thomas Lotze wrote: What about a simple and consistent API for all components including utilities, adapters and multiadapters: IFoo() IFoo(x) IFoo(x, y) This also doesn't allow you to use this (anti?)pattern: class Foo: implements(IFoo)

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Tres Seaver
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Brian Sutherland wrote: On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 05:17:17PM +0100, Thomas Lotze wrote: What about a simple and consistent API for all components including utilities, adapters and multiadapters: IFoo() IFoo(x) IFoo(x, y) This also doesn't

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Hanno Schlichting
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 recursion.  Except that it doesn't: [snip example] which strikes me as

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Martijn Faassen
Thomas Lotze wrote: [snip] What about a simple and consistent API for all components including utilities, adapters and multiadapters: IFoo() IFoo(x) IFoo(x, y) The last one won't work if we want to maintain backwards compatibility. The second argument is the default. Regards, Martijn

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Ross Patterson
Marius Gedminas mar...@gedmin.as writes: On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 01:29:25PM -0500, Tres Seaver wrote: Matthew Wilkes wrote: On 2009-11-25, at 1601, Benji York wrote: I'm not sure I like the following suggestion better than the above, but throwing it out there anyway: Multiadapter:

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Roger
Hi all Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs On Nov 25, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Thomas Lotze wrote: Martijn Faassen wrote: Adapter: IFoo(x) [...] Multiadapter: IFoo.multi(x, y) [...] Utility: IFoo.utility

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Thomas Lotze
Martijn Faassen wrote: Thomas Lotze wrote: [snip] What about a simple and consistent API for all components including utilities, adapters and multiadapters: IFoo() IFoo(x) IFoo(x, y) The last one won't work if we want to maintain backwards compatibility. The second argument is the

Re: [Zope-dev] improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs

2009-11-25 Thread Wolfgang Schnerring
* On Nov 25, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Thomas Lotze wrote: What about a simple and consistent API for all components including utilities, adapters and multiadapters: IFoo() IFoo(x) IFoo(x, y) I quite like the simplicity of this spelling, so I want to be sure *why* it must be ruled out.