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
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