Am Montag 30 November 2009 16:57:11 schrieb Gary Poster:
1) The term "adapter" is a barrier to understandability, in my interviews. This is particularly the case when people are introduced to the idea of "multiadapter" and "supscription adapter". In what ways are these anything like a type cast? IMO, they are not. Our usage of adapter is as a factory. Yes, it can be used in other ways--so can a Python class--but that is the essence of how our community uses this technology. Calling all these ideas "adapters" accomplishes nothing. Explaining all of the ideas as "a factory to produce an object that provides the interface" cleanly describes our usage, and both "adapters" and "multiadapters".
To put my 2 Cents in: Back when I started with Zope 3, the term "adapter" was really not very understandable. So the explanation: "a factory to produce an object that provides the interface" makes it really a lot more clearer.
One reason I like the syntax proposals for the adapter change is that they treat the interfaces as pluggable factories. This is apt.
2) The term "utility" is another barrier to understandability. They are singletons. Explaining them as such is a "well, why didn't you say so" experience.
Exactly. Best Regards, Hermann -- hermann@qwer.tk GPG key ID: 299893C7 (on keyservers) FP: 0124 2584 8809 EF2A DBF9 4902 64B4 D16B 2998 93C7