Stephan Richter wrote: > On Friday 27 November 2009, Martijn Faassen wrote: >> Are people okay with the proposed semantics? >> >> Would people be okay with such an upgrade path? Any better ideas? > > Looks good. > > Note: We had Thanks Giving over the weekend, so please allow more US people, > like Jim, to comment before finalizing the decision.
Good point. We'll give it some more time. Given some feedback about backwards compatibility, I'm leaning to the following adjusted scenario: * allow IFoo((a, b)) for multi adaptation. This breaks tuple adaptation. It's not as pretty as IFoo(a, b), but it's pretty tolerable and it *is* actually symmetric with registration. * deprecate a non-explicit default such as IFoo(a, default), require IFoo(a, default=default) * do the other stuff (name, utility lookups, etc) * this will be a zope.component 3.x release. Or we could even call it 4.0. * we can stick with this for quite a while. * in some years time, see about allowing IFoo(a, b) for multi adaptation. By that time people will have updated their code to use explicit defaults everywhere. * then deprecate IFoo((a, b)) in favor of IFoo(a, b) * we can then allow tuple adaptation again. :) Regards, Martijn _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
