On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Fred Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Sean Upton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> mechanism or implementation details underneath, so I think I'll >> continue to use custom field types marked with an IRelationshipField >> interface, and assume the built-in Object, List fields are only used >> for containment. The only thing I do not like about my direction is > > I'd rather not make any assumption at all; use two interfaces: one > that indicates references, and one that indicates containment. That > allows you to raise an exception for fields that don't specify, which > would be useful during testing and debugging. For each such field > found, you'll get to decide how to handle it and stamp the appropriate > interface on the field.
Makes sense, so I would have two subclasses of zope.schema.Object, one for containment, another for association -- each with respective interfaces and validation behavior. Explicit declaration of intent for each field is what I'm aiming for anyway. Thanks. Sean _______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )