Hey, First: thanks for listening, Jim.
On 9/28/07, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > > we could investigate whether we can't come up with something that: > > > > * doesn't break the existing notation. The cleanest way to support > > such non-interference seems to be to do this using an extra .adapt > > method. This is unfortunate, as I at least consider it prettier if > > it used the IFoo() syntax (even though I proposed .adapt). > > I agree. Hm, you agree with my evaluation, but would this mean you'd suggest we use 'adapt' or extend the __call__ syntax? > > * creates a small a new hook inside zope.interface to support this > > After thinking about it, I think I can avoid the extra hook. Don't > worry about the details. :) Cool! The person that tries to implement this will have to worry about them, though, so we'll get back to you on that, I'm sure. > BTW, we *could* use interface __call__ for utility lookup, as there > would be no conflict with current notation *if* we specified a > default using a keyword argument. > I would far prefer using > > IFoo() or IFoo(default=None) > > to look up a utility over: > > IFoo.adapt() or IFoo.adapt(default=None) > > for, I hope, obvious reasons. Agreed. This is good argument for using the __call__ syntax. > I'd also like to support specifying a default for adapter lookup via > a keyword argument. In fact, I'd like to deprecate passing the > default positionally. This would open the door, sometime in the > future, to allowing multi-adaptation via: IFoo(ob1, ob2). +1 > > So, any volunteers to try to implement this? > > I insist on reviewing any change before checking it in. This will > create an unavoidable bottle neck. Understood. Work will be done on a branch. Do you suggest we extend zope.component with support for this, or would you suggest we indeed create a new package? Regards, Martijn _______________________________________________ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3email@example.com Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com