Re: improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs
Thomas Lotze <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.zope.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Martijn Faassen wrote: > Thomas Lotze wrote: > [snip] >> Then let me suggest not changing the call signature of an interface at all >> but only add one or a few new methods. Firstly, this will keep backwards >> compatibility even with code that adapts a tuple, and secondly, it >> allows us to implement a simple and consistent API anyway. > > That was my original proposal, right? (I only propose adding a 'name' > argument to the IFoo() lookup if it isn't there already, otherwise it's > all new methods). I specifically wanted to suggest not adding that name argument but leaving the existing call untouched. I think once we add a new method, we shouldn't at the same time improve the existing one as that would IMO suggest rather forcefully that there's more than one way to do the same thing; just leaving it in there for compatibility is bad enough from the point of view of a clean API. -- Thomas _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - [email protected] https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )