Re: [Zope-dev] the ZCA API decision

2009-12-05 Thread Lennart Regebro
I'm +1 on this decision, and would also like to announce that I have cleaned up my Python3 compatible branch of zope.interface. Even though the decision now is to only add new stuff and not break any backwards compatibility I think adding the Python 3 support into 4.0 would be a good time to add

Re: [Zope-dev] the ZCA API decision

2009-12-05 Thread Thomas Lotze
Lennart Regebro wrote: I'm +1 on this decision, and would also like to announce that I have cleaned up my Python3 compatible branch of zope.interface. Even though the decision now is to only add new stuff and not break any backwards compatibility I think adding the Python 3 support into 4.0

Re: [Zope-dev] the ZCA API decision

2009-12-05 Thread Martijn Faassen
Thomas Lotze wrote: Lennart Regebro wrote: I'm +1 on this decision, and would also like to announce that I have cleaned up my Python3 compatible branch of zope.interface. Even though the decision now is to only add new stuff and not break any backwards compatibility I think adding the

Re: [Zope-dev] the ZCA API decision

2009-12-04 Thread Martijn Faassen
Thomas Lotze wrote: [snip] How are we going to organise the work? Do you intend to sketch out a plan for action? Should everyone create their own branches and experiment for a while first? I think you're the main volunteer we have to work on this, so I suggest you try your stuff on a branch.

Re: [Zope-dev] the ZCA API decision

2009-12-04 Thread Martijn Faassen
Godefroid Chapelle wrote: [snip] I tried to follow this discussion closely: however, I cannot say that I understand if doing multi-adaptation with IFoo(bar, baz, boo) has been rejected or postponed. Multi adaptation with IFoo(foo, bar) is off the agenda. Whether that means a permanent

Re: [Zope-dev] the ZCA API decision

2009-12-04 Thread Martijn Faassen
Martin Aspeli wrote: Martijn Faassen wrote: Hi there, I think we've had enough discussion to make a decision. I'm a little worried that neither Stephan Richter, nor Jim Fulton have had much weight in on this. They seem like important stakeholders. :) Stephan has chipped in on this

Re: [Zope-dev] the ZCA API decision

2009-12-04 Thread Martijn Faassen
Thomas Lotze wrote: [snip] I'd be happy to lead this effort, if you like to put it like that. I wouldn't want to take it out of Martijn's hands, though, unless he's happy with it as well, given that he's the one who started the discussion. By all means take the lead on the implementation. :)

Re: [Zope-dev] the ZCA API decision

2009-12-04 Thread Martijn Faassen
Brian Sutherland wrote: On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 03:11:07PM -0700, Shane Hathaway wrote: Godefroid Chapelle wrote: I tried to follow this discussion closely: however, I cannot say that I understand if doing multi-adaptation with IFoo(bar, baz, boo) has been rejected or postponed. AFAICT,

Re: [Zope-dev] the ZCA API decision

2009-12-04 Thread Christian Theune
Hi, On 12/03/2009 06:41 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote: Hi there, I think we've had enough discussion to make a decision. Hopefully everybody is at least reasonably happy with this: An adapt() method will be added to Interface. It takes the objects to adapt as *args, and optional but explicit

Re: [Zope-dev] the ZCA API decision

2009-12-04 Thread Thomas Lotze
Gary Poster wrote: I would think we would want to follow the pattern of the adapter_hooks in zope.interface.interface, including the C optimizations. Speaking of adapter hooks: If I'm not completely mistaken, adapter hooks know about exactly one object to be adapted. To follow the pattern of

Re: [Zope-dev] the ZCA API decision

2009-12-04 Thread Jim Fulton
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com wrote: Martin Aspeli wrote: Martijn Faassen wrote: Hi there, I think we've had enough discussion to make a decision. I'm a little worried that neither Stephan Richter, nor Jim Fulton have had much weight in on this.

Re: [Zope-dev] the ZCA API decision

2009-12-03 Thread Chris McDonough
Martijn Faassen wrote: Hi there, I think we've had enough discussion to make a decision. Hopefully everybody is at least reasonably happy with this: An adapt() method will be added to Interface. It takes the objects to adapt as *args, and optional but explicit 'default' and 'name'

Re: [Zope-dev] the ZCA API decision

2009-12-03 Thread Thomas Lotze
Martijn Faassen wrote: Thomas Lotze, are you happy enough with this to still help with the implementation? I am indeed. This isn't the ideal solution I had hoped for, but it is a big step in a good direction from my point of view and I don't see any part of it that might take us away from the

Re: [Zope-dev] the ZCA API decision

2009-12-03 Thread Gary Poster
On Dec 3, 2009, at 3:33 PM, Thomas Lotze wrote: Martijn Faassen wrote: Thomas Lotze, are you happy enough with this to still help with the implementation? I am indeed. This isn't the ideal solution I had hoped for, but it is a big step in a good direction from my point of view and I

Re: [Zope-dev] the ZCA API decision

2009-12-03 Thread Godefroid Chapelle
Martijn Faassen wrote: Hi there, I think we've had enough discussion to make a decision. Hopefully everybody is at least reasonably happy with this: An adapt() method will be added to Interface. It takes the objects to adapt as *args, and optional but explicit 'default' and 'name'

Re: [Zope-dev] the ZCA API decision

2009-12-03 Thread Shane Hathaway
Godefroid Chapelle wrote: I tried to follow this discussion closely: however, I cannot say that I understand if doing multi-adaptation with IFoo(bar, baz, boo) has been rejected or postponed. AFAICT, the decision to reject or postpone that has been postponed. :-) Shane

Re: [Zope-dev] the ZCA API decision

2009-12-03 Thread Thomas Lotze
Gary Poster wrote: I don't know if too much experimentation is needed for this in particular. I would think we would want to follow the pattern of the adapter_hooks in zope.interface.interface, including the C optimizations. I would be comfortable with you leading the effort, in a shared

Re: [Zope-dev] the ZCA API decision

2009-12-03 Thread Martin Aspeli
Martijn Faassen wrote: Hi there, I think we've had enough discussion to make a decision. I'm a little worried that neither Stephan Richter, nor Jim Fulton have had much weight in on this. They seem like important stakeholders. :) Hopefully everybody is at least reasonably happy with

Re: [Zope-dev] the ZCA API decision

2009-12-03 Thread Shane Hathaway
Martin Aspeli wrote: Can we all get back to our lives now? :-) FWIW, I try to participate in discussions like these by reading and writing only short emails. I find that I don't miss much that way. Life is more enjoyable without essay-mails. Shane

Re: [Zope-dev] the ZCA API decision

2009-12-03 Thread Martin Aspeli
Shane Hathaway wrote: Martin Aspeli wrote: Can we all get back to our lives now? :-) FWIW, I try to participate in discussions like these by reading and writing only short emails. I find that I don't miss much that way. Life is more enjoyable without essay-mails. You don't know me very

Re: [Zope-dev] the ZCA API decision

2009-12-03 Thread Brian Sutherland
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 03:11:07PM -0700, Shane Hathaway wrote: Godefroid Chapelle wrote: I tried to follow this discussion closely: however, I cannot say that I understand if doing multi-adaptation with IFoo(bar, baz, boo) has been rejected or postponed. AFAICT, the decision to reject

Re: [Zope-dev] the ZCA API decision

2009-12-03 Thread Brian Sutherland
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 06:41:03PM +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote: Hi there, I think we've had enough discussion to make a decision. Hopefully everybody is at least reasonably happy with this: An adapt() method will be added to Interface. It takes the objects to adapt as *args, and