Re: implementing zope.component 4.0
"Charlie Clark" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.zope.devel |
|---|---|
| Organization | Clark Consulting & Research |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Am 27.11.2009, 15:57 Uhr, schrieb Chris Withers <[email protected]>: > Well, I don't think the difference between adapters and utilities is > important, but I can understand why some people find calling the > interface odd: it is when you think about it objectively. I have to agree with this. IFoo(myobject) is not intuitive. I know it used a lot because it's convenient shorthand but I've never read anywhere that interface classes are, in fact, callables. We certainly don't normally treat them as such. One of the things that I have grown to appreciate with the ZCA is the advantage of spelling out the relationship between objects and I'll happily take a little verbosity over magic. The discussion does highlight a key source of confusion about Zope interfaces: they are, at the same time, an object specification and a kind of name tag or token that objects can provide upon request. While I know that the second function is derived from the first it is conceptually different. My preference, for the sake of clarity: adapted = an_easy_way_to_the_registry.adapt(*objects_to_be_adapted, **identifiers) That adapters are all callable now seems to be an accepted convention, presumably from convenience. But my understanding of adapters does not imply this. Charlie -- Charlie Clark Managing Director Clark Consulting & Research German Office Helmholtzstr. 20 Düsseldorf D- 40215 Tel: +49-211-600-3657 Mobile: +49-178-782-6226 _______________________________________________ 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 )