On 31 May 2005, at 12:39, Garrett Smith wrote:
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.

Ah no, I'm saying that in addition to fulfulling existing scenarios I have, it also fulfills some fantasy ones :)

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

That's if you want things to be totally transparent, yes. Which is a valid concern, but I'm not sure it's the most expressive choice for a system. I wouldn't mind requiring have a small bit of cooperation from objects if they want to be versioned properly.


Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France)   CTO, Director of R&D
+33 1 40 33 71 59   http://nuxeo.com   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Zope3-dev mailing list
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to