Hi there, Reading the thread Chris McDonough started (and ended) about modifying the way utility registration works reminded me of the following thinking. It's quite independent and probably even antithetical to Chris's approach as it uses interfaces, but that's fine. The goal is to make it easier to look up certain componenty things. The goal is to have to import from "zope.component" as little as possible for lookups. Just import interfaces and you'll be done. I think it makes sense to make the lookup operation disappear into the "language" as much as we can make them. I know we've had this kind of discussion before, but let's get something working this time around. So I'm also looking for volunteers to help out with the implementation. I'm going to ignore registration APIs for now in this discussion. While they can be improved too, we have ZCML and martian-style registration systems that can handle that ok. Let's focus on lookup APIs first. We have a nice way to look up a single adapter: from foo import IFoo IFoo(object) Unfortunately, this breaks down when you want to look up a multiadapter: from foo import IFoo from zope import component component.getMultiAdapter((x, y), IFoo) That's an extra import and a lot more typing. We also have it break down when you want to look up a utility: from zope import component component.getUtility(IFoo) So let's look at ways to hook this up to interfaces. Adapter: IFoo(x) Adapter with default: IFoo(x, default=default) So far it's all supported. (I think. It's hard to find the code that supports this.. hints?) Named adapter: IFoo(x, name='something') Multiadapter: IFoo.multi(x, y) Multiadapter with default: IFoo.multi(x, y, default=default) Named multiadapter: IFoo.multi(x, y, name='something') Utility: IFoo.utility() [or possibly IFoo() instead?] Utility with default: IFoo.utility(default=default) [or IFoo(default=default)?] Named utility: IFoo.utility(name='something') [or IFoo(name='something')?] As a final thought, I don't like having to import 'implements' from zope.interface either. Since we're moving to Python 2.6 which supports class decorators, I'd like to see something like this become possible: @IFoo.implements class Foo(object): pass I know Jim had some objections towards implementation of this in an earlier discussion, but later changed his mind. So I'm going to look at Jim for hints about implementing this. :) If we do well we might all have this for Christmas. :) Thoughts? Regards, Martijn