Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 11/13/06, Jean-Marc Orliaguet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Indeed technically yes. Practically not. I couldn't find many examples
in the zope3 codebase that adapts classes.
The #1 pattern is to adapt from interfaces, it appears as though there
is a reason for it.
Yes, and I think both you and me mentioned it, but with different
If you specify it for a class, then only that class is adaptable. If
you want to use the adapter for yet another class, you have to
register it again. This is possible, but it's more flexible to specify
the adapter for an interface, and let all adaptable classes implement
yes, but if you register an adapter for a base class you don't have to
register it for subclasses, do you?
subclasses will pick up the same adapter. Provided that you use classes
for typing your objects and not interfaces.
otherwise I withdraw what I previously wrote (that classes were
adaptable) if that's for individual classes only. The basic force behind
adapter registration (based on interfaces) is the principle of inheritance.
This is also a matter of specifying things for what they can do,
instead of for what they are, which you mentioned.
I'm not sure the proliferication (?) of marker interfaces is a big
risk. But if we get many of them, it still works better than the
options of magic __something__ attributes. :)
but conceptually it is the same mess :-) i.e. a total lack of
specification. It only looks nicer with interfaces.
Zope3-dev mailing list