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. :)



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

Reply via email to