[Zope-dev] implementing zope.component 4.0

[Martin Aspeli]

Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Stephan Richter wrote:
>> On Friday 27 November 2009, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>> Are people okay with the proposed semantics?
>>>
>>> Would people be okay with such an upgrade path? Any better ideas?
>> Looks good.
>>
>> Note: We had Thanks Giving over the weekend, so please allow more US people, 
>> like Jim, to comment before finalizing the decision.
> 
> Good point. We'll give it some more time.
> 
> Given some feedback about backwards compatibility, I'm leaning to the 
> following adjusted scenario:
> 
> * allow IFoo((a, b)) for multi adaptation. This breaks tuple adaptation. 
> It's not as pretty as IFoo(a, b), but it's pretty tolerable and it *is* 
> actually symmetric with registration.

+1

> * deprecate a non-explicit default such as IFoo(a, default), require 
> IFoo(a, default=default)

+0

> * do the other stuff (name, utility lookups, etc)

+1

> * this will be a zope.component 3.x release. Or we could even call it 4.0.

I'd say 4.0 is more appropriate. This gives us some room to have further 
3.x releases in-between/afterwards.

> * we can stick with this for quite a while.
> 
> * in some years time, see about allowing IFoo(a, b) for multi 
> adaptation. By that time people will have updated their code to use 
> explicit defaults everywhere.

+0

> * then deprecate IFoo((a, b)) in favor of IFoo(a, b)
> 
> * we can then allow tuple adaptation again. :)

+0

This seems like a more reasonable compromise to me.

Cheers,
Martin

-- 
Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who
want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book