Jim Fulton wrote at 2007-5-4 14:40 -0400: > >On May 4, 2007, at 2:33 PM, Dieter Maurer wrote: > >> Jim Fulton wrote at 2007-5-2 11:52 -0400: >>> ... >>> I think I still rather like explicit, but I'm on the fence about >>> which approach is best. What do other people think? >> >>> From your description, I would use a subclassing (and forget about >> proxy and copying). > >That would be a nightmare, on multiple levels: > >- All of the separate implementations would become tightly coupled, >which is what happens with inheritance. > >- Either someone would have to create classes for the various >permutations of features, or consumers would have to mix and match >multiple classes to get what they want and sort out the variate >internal implementation incompatibilities.
Your decorators would become mixin classes and the final classes would list the features they like -- simpler than ZCML binding together... Of course, some features may not play well with one another. But, that will make problems also with proxies or copying... -- Dieter _______________________________________________ For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki: http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev