Hash: SHA1

Martijn Faassen wrote:
> 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. :)

Do we really have a significant codebase which both needs to adapt
tuples *and* uses the interface-calling sugar?

- --
Tres Seaver          +1 540-429-0999          tsea...@palladion.com
Palladion Software   "Excellence by Design"    http://palladion.com
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


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

Reply via email to