Florent Guillaume wrote: > Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Based on the discussion so far, I'm convinced that something like >> this would be useful, at least as an optional feature, as you >> suggest. >> >> I suggest we generalize this a bit. I suggest that the >> ObjectModified event could accept one or more modification >> descriptions (hints?). Some examples: >> >> ObjectModifiedEvent(obj, IObjectFile) >> >> This says that we modified the objects file data. Note that >> an interface is an acceptable description. In fact, we >> might allow pretty muich anything as a description. >> >> ObjectModifiedEvent(obj, IObjectFile, >> Attributes(IZopeDublinCore, 'title', >> 'description'), ) >> >> This says we modified the file data and the DC title and description. > > That looks good to me. Especially because, using interfaces, we could > theoretically express more than just a set of attributes that have > changed on an object. I'm thinking of: > > - having the interface itself add semantics to what a subscriber could > want to do about the change (i.e., it could recognize > IZopeDublinCore and decide to delay its work), > > - having the interface express more complex object structure than > just a set of attributes (I'm thinking about XML Schema-derived / > XForms interfaces, where you can represent deep structures). > > That's all science-fiction of course.
This is my concern :-) I'm seeing a lot of hypothesizing and we should instead be driven by hard requirements/use cases. IIR, the one definite requirement is to provide support for object versioning. But, as Jim's pointed out, this is probably better handled at a lowed level, since there's no guarantee *any* event model will be sufficient. -- Garrett _______________________________________________ Zope3-dev mailing list [email protected] Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
