Chris McDonough wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> So now that we've had some discussion and to exit the "bikeshed" phase, 
>> let's see about getting some volunteers to work on this.
>> The goal here is to make interfaces disappear into the language as much 
>> as possible.
> I suggest we think to ourselves who the primary beneficiary of this goal is.  
> I 
> don't really disagree with anything you say here in absolute terms, but if 
> the 
> goal is increased adoption by new users, I think there are (relatively) more 
> fundamental things that could be done to help.

For this measure I'm not interested in increased adoption by new users. 
I just want to be able to have a more convenient way to express these 
things. So, my goal is to make life easier for myself (and hopefully 

> In particular, I'd suggest we write real documentation for the current 
> zope.component package.  When I say "real documentation", I mean something 
> like 
> this:  "Official" docs for the package 
> itself.
> Once you start writing documentation, obvious refactoring opportunities often 
> fall out that are more important than adding another layer of abstraction.  I 
> think adding more abstraction without documenting the current system will not 
> serve a goal of increasing adoption.

I don't think there's much in the way of abstraction I'm proposing. It's 
an improvement of an API that's been bothering me for a long time (and 
this idea has floated around for a long time), influenced by the 
extensive experience have with this API.

I'd be happy to see better documentation, and I'm sure that by writing 
better documentation further improvements will appear. Different topic, 
though. But as we're on that topic, I'll commit to writing better 
documentation for this package.



Zope-Dev maillist  -
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to