[Zope-dev] implementing zope.component 4.0

[Chris Withers]

Marius Gedminas wrote:
>> What's the motivation?
> 
> The "utilities must be singletons" logic hardcoded in the ZCA.
> 
> provideAdapter(factory, adapts=(one, two, three))
> provideAdapter(factory, adapts=(one, two))
> provideAdapter(factory, adapts=(one, ))
> 
> The natural progression, to me, is
> 
> provideAdapter(factory, adapts=())

Makes perfect sense to me :-)

> rather than
> 
> provideUtility(singleton)
> 
> If we decide, ignoring BBB concerns, to make
> 
>   provideUtility(singleton, provides=IFoo)
> 
> be equivalent to
> 
>   provideAdapter(lambda: singleton, adapts=(), provides=IFoo)

Also makes perfect sense to me, also seems like a reasonable 
implementation for provideUtility :-)

> This also assumes that I'm free to
> 
>   provideAdapter(arbitrary_callable, adapts=()) 
>   
> and use computed-utility-lookup, or even create utilities on demand in
> my arbitrary_callable.

I can't see why you wouldn't be able to, adapters are just callables 
afterall... Would suggest some docs to cover the gotcha though:

class CreateFrobsUtility:

   def __call__(self):
       return Frob()

Bug:

provideAdapter(CreateFrobsUtility, provides=IFrobFactory)

Correct:

frobsmaker = CreateFrobsUtility()
provideAdapter(lambda:frobsmaker, provides=IFrobFactory)

Having provideUtility around is a good thing to save typing :-)

> Three cheers for utility and empty-tuple-adapter unification!

Indeed!

> Ignoring BBB and assuming utilities are distinct fowl, 

They aren't ;-)

> The phrasing of your question ("deprecate") makes ignoring BBB
> impossible, in which case I'd prefer to have a 100% backwards-compatible
> IFoo(single_arg, [default]) + IFoo.adapt(*args, **kw) +
> IFoo.utility(**kw).

How do you feel about:

- introducing .get(*to_adapt,default=marker,name=None) ASAP

- switching the semantics of IWhatever() in 4.0

?

Chris

-- 
Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing & Python Consulting
            - http://www.simplistix.co.uk