On Dec 1, 2009, at 8:21 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hi there,
> I'd like to summarize the options I've seen appear in the discussion so far.
> We have the following options:
> 1) introduce a new method, such as "instance()" or "lookup()" on
> instance. It unifies utilities with adapters. We can make it do whatever
> we want without worrying about backwards compatibility.
> 2) introduce several new methods that distinguish between utility and
> adapter lookup. We can make them do whatever we want without worrying
> about backwards compatibility.
> 3) call the interface, which unifies adapter and utility lookups. Use
> tuples for multi adaptation. We think could make this work without *too*
> much backwards compatibility issues (pending research on how prevalent
> tuple adaptation really is). In the long term we can even map out a
> deprecation strategy that can smoothly migrate us to a "multi argument"
> 4) call the interface, which unifies adapter and utility lookups. Use
> multiple arguments for multi adaptation. The backwards compatibility
> obstacles are largest here as we already have the "default" argument.
> We'd need to introduce multiple "modes" to selectively upgrade.
You are leaving out the variants of 3 and 4 that allow calling the interface to
support multiadaptation, but do not unify utilities.
My impression is that I am not the only one who is not pleased with the
proposed unification of utilities and adaptation.
My impression is that we are nearing consensus on the variation of 3 that does
not include utilities.
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -