[Zope-dev] split out zope.component "mechanics" into a separate package (was Re: improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs)

[Gary Poster]

On Nov 25, 2009, at 5:08 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:

> Chris McDonough wrote:
>>> If some set of ZCA APIs made it the responsibility of the *caller* to invoke the adapter with arguments would go a long way between normalizing the difference between utilities and adapters (because they would essentially then be the same thing).
> 
> The very core mechanics of how a component registry behaves resides almost entirely in the zope.component.registry module.
> 
> It would be useful to split these core mechanics into a separate package. Here's why:
> 
> - The zope.component module carries along an expectation of a particular global
>  API.  This global API is not required to use the mechanics of the underlying
>  registry machinery.
> 
> - The zope.component package has a number of features that are irrelevant
>  to the operation of the core registry itself, such as persistence and
>  security.
> 
> - The registry itself is useful outside the context of the zope.component API
>  package; the API is essentially just "candy" on top of the registry itself.
> 
> I have created such a package at http://svn.zope.org/Sandbox/chrism/zope.registry
> 
> It contains an implementation of the registry and the tests for the registry object.  It depends on zope.interface and zope.event.  I'd like to actually remove the zope.event dependency and release a newer version of zope.event that uses a global inside zope.registry as the list of registered object (reverse the dependency).
> 
> After that's done, I'd suggest we make zope.component depend on zope.registry.
> 
> At this point, people can innovate with their own APIs to the registry object as necessary; they needn't carry along the baggage of the expecation of the older zope.component API working in their app.
> 
> Thoughts?

FWIW, it's not of a lot of interest to me.  I'm interested in changing things at a lower level.  However that works, if I manage to build zope.component backwards compatibility as an add-on then I'll have to worry about all of the bits in zope.component, not just this.

Gary