On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Lennart Regebro <rege...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 08:51, Brian Sutherland <br...@vanguardistas.net> 
> wrote:
>> I like things to fail noisily and loudly unconfigured and give good
>> information about what's wrong.
> +1
> we make zope.interface aware that such a thing as utility-registries
> exist, but say we don't implement it. I don't think that's a problem.
> The error message also gives an example of an implementation. That's
> probably not a problem either.
>> I feel uncomfortable about that.
> I don't. :-)

+1 from my perspective of "I don't know or understand the core ZCA
codebase very well (and don't understand all the implications in this
discussion) but often read or trace through the code."  A
well-documented NotImplementedError seems much more human-useful than
a default implementation that fulfills the contract, because it
assertively announces the expectation for the most common case by far:
"you probably want to plug in a real implementation here."  Then if
there is a need for the proposed default implementation, it can be
provided as a plugin by some other package, right?

Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to