Am Montag 30 November 2009 16:57:11 schrieb Gary Poster:
> 1) The term "adapter" is a barrier to understandability, in my interviews. 
> This is particularly the case when people are introduced to the idea of
> "multiadapter" and "supscription adapter".  In what ways are these anything
> like a type cast?  IMO, they are not.  Our usage of adapter is as a
> factory.  Yes, it can be used in other ways--so can a Python class--but
> that is the essence of how our community uses this technology.  Calling all
> these ideas "adapters" accomplishes nothing.  Explaining all of the ideas
> as "a factory to produce an object that provides the interface" cleanly
> describes our usage, and both "adapters" and "multiadapters".

To put my 2 Cents in: Back when I started with Zope 3, the term "adapter" was 
really not very understandable. So the explanation:

"a factory to produce an object that provides the interface"

makes it really a lot more clearer.

> One reason I like the syntax proposals for the adapter change is that they
> treat the interfaces as pluggable factories.  This is apt.
>
> 2) The term "utility" is another barrier to understandability.  They are
> singletons.  Explaining them as such is a "well, why didn't you say so"
> experience.

Exactly.

Best Regards,
Hermann

-- 
herm...@qwer.tk
GPG key ID: 299893C7 (on keyservers)
FP: 0124 2584 8809 EF2A DBF9  4902 64B4 D16B 2998 93C7
_______________________________________________
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 )

Reply via email to