On Dec 3, 2009, at 1:54 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
> My $.02 is here:
I was going to comment on your blog, even though it was separate from the
mailing list, but then I couldn't register an account, so here I am.
I agree with a decent chunk of what you say. I guess my experiences working
with new and casual ZCA users in Launchpad are somewhat similar to your BFG
I'm very interested in working on changes in the underlying registry. Like you
(I think), I'd also like to support the ability for using classes and abcs for
specs. I have some work in that direction. I also want a better debugging
API, which I have also investigated. We might disagree on the specifics, but
it sounds like we're similar in broad desires there.
I also agree with many of your perceptions of what we have: the experimental
package I have started that subsumes the jobs of zope.interface and
zope.component is called "pluggable," which echoes one of your points. I don't
think replacing these packages is a practical way forward, but it helps me
think and imagine.
I think that moving forward might be easiest to do by making the adapter
registry pluggable in zope.interface and zope.component, and working on this in
another package. At that point, interested users of zope.interface and
zope.component could choose to use our registry (and perhaps it might evolve to
become the "blessed" registry at some point); and we could provide alternative
ways of using the package, separate from zope.component and zope.interface.
We should collaborate. In my "copious spare time" I would like to call you and
see if you and I can at least agree on some experiments in this direction. I'd
like it if my work had some chance of uptake in BFG.
I personally think these efforts do not make the potential consensus on
``adapt`` and ``utility`` methods any less interesting: they would be a
concrete win for my users.
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -