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"
GPG key ID: 299893C7 (on keyservers)
FP: 0124 2584 8809 EF2A DBF9 4902 64B4 D16B 2998 93C7
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -