[Zope-dev] internal improvements to zope.component Was: ZCA summary so far...

[Martijn Faassen]

Gary Poster wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> 
>> Gary Poster wrote: [snip]
>>> I personally think these efforts do not make the potential
>>> consensus on ``adapt`` and ``utility`` methods any less
>>> interesting: they would be a concrete win for my users.
>> I agree with much of what Gary is saying here.
>> 
>> My ideas:
>> 
>> * I'd like us not to make any lookup API improvements on looking up
>>  things dependent on underlying refactorings.
> 
> I didn't follow this until I squinted at it and came up with
> 
> "I'd like us not to make any API improvements on looking up things
> dependent on underlying refactorings."
> 
> That sounds reasonable.

Sorry, that wasn't very clear. I just meant that we should improve the
lookup API not waiting for underlying API changes to materialize. These
processes should be decoupled. If from underlying API changes we come up 
with even better lookup APIs, so be it.

>> * I'd like to see some underlying refactorings in 
>> zope.component/zope.interface.
> 
> A broad agreement, but an agreement nonetheless.
> 
>> * I'd also like to see a better registration API
> 
> I don't have that pain point ATM, but I can vaguely see where one
> might.

Where is your pain point?

>> * documenting this clearly (and perhaps in advance of any actual
>> work) is important.
> 
> +1 on documenting. -1 on not allowing some experiments to happen
> first.

Sure, experiments are fine.

>> * I'd like to keep zope.interface and zope.component backwards 
>> compatible and still benefit from the improvements.
> 
> +1
> 
>> * Therefore, any rethink of the internals can be substantial but
>> not so fundamental as to drop interfaces or the ideas of adaptation
>> and utilities.
> 
> I'm +1 on that as long as it can be rephrased to "...can be
> substantial but not so fundamental as to drop interfaces or the
> *support for* the ideas of adaptation and utilities."

Sure, we don't want to drop support either. :)

>> * Preferably I would like these things to take place in
>> zope.component and/or zope.interface. Experimental packages are all
>> right, I guess, but I wouldn't want them to be permanent. Let's
>> keep the user community together on this one, please.
> 
> I am interested in a package that gives the pluggable functionality I
> want but that does not depend on zope.component, but that
> zope.component can or does depend on.

I don't want zope.component become a shell on some other package with a 
better API. I know that that's often how we work, but I'd like to try to 
make zope.component itself that better package.

> I am not a fan of design by committee.
> 
> I do think a community ("committee") often has better ideas than a
> single person.  Certainly I feel comfortable saying that when the
> single person is myself.
> 
> I reconcile these positions by feeling that a very small number of
> people should design packages initially.  Then the community can take
> them, take them and modify them, or leave them (ideally learning from
> them).

I don't want this to be a "take it or leave it" situation. I'd like 
there to be some commitment to making this package work for the whole 
community. I do not want this to be another vision that in the end the 
community can't use because we still depend on zope.component.

>> * I *also* would like to take a range of optional dependencies out
>> of zope.component, however. The ZCML directive implementations in
>> particular.
> 
> I don't have that pain point ATM, but I can vaguely see where one
> might.

I think Chris McDonough shares this problem, as he already forked the 
directive implementations. Probably grokcore.component could be a bit 
nicer too.

Regards,

Martijn