Tres Seaver wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Are people okay with the proposed semantics?
> +1.
>> Would people be okay with such an upgrade path? Any better ideas?
> I would start issuign DeprecationWarnings (yes, I know I'm their worst
> fan, but we can't keep BBB here, so warnings are appropriate) for
> positional defaults in 3.9.x.

Good idea. Let's release a 3.9.x (or a 3.10) that does that as soon as 

> I think we should also document the "don't call" API better (pure
> lookup):  there have been use cases for this feature (e.g., "adapt to
> scalar / string") floating around for a *long* time now, unsupported.
> If that means accepting the zope.registry change Chris proposed, I'm
> fine with that.

I'm not sure I understand how Chris' zope.registry change has something 
to do with this API, perhaps I missed something? I agree that we could 
document this API better though.

>> Most importantly, any volunteers?
> I can help some with this.  Perhaps we should start by fleshing it
> *really good docs* (not doctests) for zope.component 4.0, including
> careful notes about how to make existing code compatible with both 3.x
> and 4.x APIs.

I'd be happy to help with this. I think that this work could be started 
in the trunk right away, as this documentation should be useful for 3.x 
as well, at least in terms of transitioning existing code.



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

Reply via email to