On Sun, December 17, 2006 10:27 am, Dieter Maurer wrote: > Christian Theune wrote at 2006-12-11 08:30 +0100: >> ... >>> Both are not acceptable, especially option #1. We can't just change >>> existing contracts as we see fit. >> >>Right. However, I think it's possible to regard this is a bug in the >>original contract. > > But, some adapters for "IAnnotations" may not know about the newly > introduced responsibilities and fail to implement them. > > Thus, fixing this "bug" in the proposed way will introduce bugs > at other places.
Jupp. Is there any technical chance the we can use the deprecation mechanism or something like this to inform developers that they are not fully complying to a changed contract? Still, for me it feels like the original interface should have included this and I think it would be nice if we have an exit strategy for this (and similar) situations where the original interface was wrong. I consider the solution that introduce an additional interface in the long term to be less than optimal. (Except if someone has a good explanation that I can give to new developers why we made that distinction in the first place.) Christian _______________________________________________ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3email@example.com Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com