-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -