Dieter Maurer wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2006-11-15 20:34 +0100:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2006-11-15 15:08 +0100:
...
def myStrAdapter(something):
return str(something)
It instantiates a 'str' object. The 'str' object is the adapter for
'something'.
Huh? This would be a severe terminology abuse:
I agree, it's bending the terminology a lot. It wasn't me who came up
with the 'str' and 'int' example.
An adapter should adapt something to something else *BUT*
an "str" object does not adapt anything (it does not operate on
another object).
Well, imagine
>>> str(123)
'123'
Here '123' is the 'str' adapter of the integer 123. It's conceptually
the same if you do
That's the terminology abuse:
'123' is not an adapter because it does not do the adaption.
'123' is the *result* of adapting 123 to 'str'.
You may call '123' the 'str' adaption of the integer 123.
>>> IZopeDublinCore(myobj)
except that in the str(123) case, you call the class directly instead of
using the Component Architecture's registry as a flexible dispatch.
With appropriate terminology use, you would call "IZopeDublinCore"
the adapter and "IZopeDublinCore(myobj)" the ZopeDublinCore
adaption (maybe adaptation) of "myobj".
Again "IZopeDublinCore(myobj)" is not an adapter but an adapted value.
Not sure what "official" terminology glossary you're basing this on, but
we often refer to "IZopeDublinCore(myobj)" as the "IZopeDublinCore
adapter" of myobj". Whatever is called to instantiate that object we
call the "adapter factory" or "adapter implementation". The whole
zope.component API (both registration and lookup) reflects this use of
the terminology.
--
http://worldcookery.com -- Professional Zope documentation and training
_______________________________________________
Zope3-dev mailing list
[email protected]
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
