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
* 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. :)
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -