Gary Poster wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2009, at 8:33 AM, Fred Drake wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:21 AM, Thomas Lotze <t...@gocept.com> wrote:
>>> To be honest, I just don't see why this whole singleton business
>>> shouldn't be orthogonal to the concepts of the component architecture.
>> Well said. If an application cares about singleton creation or
>> ownership of factory-returned objects, it can describe those
>> requirements using interfaces.
> You are arguing for the unification of utilities and adapters?
IMO we're arguing that singletons, the registration of instances vs
factories and the distinction between utilities and adapters are three
completely different subjects that are orthogonal to each other. I.e. I
consider all eight of these combinations conceivable: take a class that
may or may not implement a singleton and register an instance of it or the
class itself as an adapter or a utility. (I do agree that an adapter being
a singleton is a pathological case but I wouldn't consider it conceptually
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -