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.

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.


> * then deprecate IFoo((a, b)) in favor of IFoo(a, b)
> * we can then allow tuple adaptation again. :)


This seems like a more reasonable compromise to me.


Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who
want to work with Plone. See

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

Reply via email to