On May 4, 2007, at 3:14 PM, Dieter Maurer wrote:

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

So the second case above. As I said, inheritance causes tight coupling. Mix in classes can work when the features provides are truly independent. That would certainly not be the case here. Trying to combine multiple storage implementations in a single class would be a real mess.

-- simpler
than ZCML binding together...

There's no ZCML involved here, although there would likely be ZConfig files. People would want to be able to combine storages in their configuration files.

Of course, some features may not play well with one another.
But, that will make problems also with proxies or copying...

All of the examples I mentioned can be handled very well with a decorator model.


Jim Fulton                      mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]                Python 
CTO                             (540) 361-1714                  
Zope Corporation        http://www.zope.com             http://www.zope.org

For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:

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

Reply via email to