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.
+1 > * deprecate a non-explicit default such as IFoo(a, default), require > IFoo(a, default=default) +0 > * do the other stuff (name, utility lookups, etc) +1 > * this will be a zope.component 3.x release. Or we could even call it 4.0. I'd say 4.0 is more appropriate. This gives us some room to have further 3.x releases in-between/afterwards. > * 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. +0 > * then deprecate IFoo((a, b)) in favor of IFoo(a, b) > > * we can then allow tuple adaptation again. :) +0 This seems like a more reasonable compromise to me. Cheers, Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book _______________________________________________ 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 )