On Aug 5, 2005, at 2:33 PM, Tim Peters wrote:

[Julien Anguenot]

The order argument could be an integer with a default value to 0 added
to the registration method.

[Gary Poster]

I usually like the word 'priority' for this sort of value, rather than
'order'.  To me 'order' implies unique value--i.e., with 'order' I am
mildly surprised to learn that two entries may have the same order. I
am not surprised that two entries may share a priority.

It's wholly unclear to me, given a callback with associated value 0 and another with associated value 9999999, which one is supposed to be invoked first. If the parameter is called "priority", then I'd expect 9999999 to
"win"; if it's called "order", then 0.

To each his own, I suppose--'first priority' and 'last priority' is my model, in which, at the least, a priority of 1 would be first priority and a priority of 9999999 is a reasonable last priority (acknowledging a positive infinity as something that would take the honor of being reliably last priority, then). A priority of 0, and a negative priority, start to muddle the model a bit, certainly.

But anyway, if you don't see 'priority' in that way, then yes, it is perhaps unclear in a different dimension than 'order' is unclear. :-)

For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:

ZODB-Dev mailing list  -  ZODB-Dev@zope.org

Reply via email to