Gary Poster wrote:
> 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.

I agree with much of what Gary is saying here.

My ideas:

* I'd like us not to make any lookup API improvements on looking up 
things dependent on underlying refactorings.

* I'd like to see some underlying refactorings in 

* I'd also like to see a better registration API

* documenting this clearly (and perhaps in advance of any actual work) 
is important.

* I'd like to keep zope.interface and zope.component backwards 
compatible and still benefit from the improvements.

* Therefore, any rethink of the internals can be substantial but not so 
fundamental as to drop interfaces or the ideas of adaptation and utilities.

* Preferably I would like these things to take place in zope.component 
and/or zope.interface. Experimental packages are all right, I guess, but 
I wouldn't want them to be permanent. Let's keep the user community 
together on this one, please.

* I *also* would like to take a range of optional dependencies out of 
zope.component, however. The ZCML directive implementations in particular.

* but I'd be fine if we got a better API and implemented the old APIs on 
top of these.

* and we might eventually deprecate the old APIs.



Zope-Dev maillist  -
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to