Marius Gedminas wrote:
> The "utilities must be singletons" logic hardcoded in the ZCA.
> provideAdapter(factory, adapts=(one, two, three))
> provideAdapter(factory, adapts=(one, two))
> provideAdapter(factory, adapts=(one, ))
> The natural progression, to me, is
> provideAdapter(factory, adapts=())
> rather than
> If we decide, ignoring BBB concerns, to make
> provideUtility(singleton, provides=IFoo)
> be equivalent to
> provideAdapter(lambda: singleton, adapts=(), provides=IFoo)
> then I'd be very happy to use
> for utility lookup.
> This also assumes that I'm free to
> provideAdapter(arbitrary_callable, adapts=())
> and use computed-utility-lookup, or even create utilities on demand in
> my arbitrary_callable.
> Three cheers for utility and empty-tuple-adapter unification!
This sounds appealing to me.
Making it so should be seen as a separate project. The backwards
compatibility implications are rather larger, especially in the face of
Someone would need to experiment whether zope.component.registry can be
refactored into these terms. Effectively we'd merge
_utility_registrations into _adapter_registrations. But how would this
impact the performance of things like 'registeredUtilities()', for instance?
I wonder too what we could do to subscription_registrations and
handler_registrations, I hadn't considered those in these discussions at
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -