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.
* 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)
* 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 - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -