Re: improving the utility and adapter lookup APIs
Chris McDonough <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.zope.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Martijn Faassen wrote: >>> I'd be in favor of an API based off calling the interface directly for >>> everything *if* we can come up with a backwards compatibility story somehow. >> Just as a data point, I forgot to hook "adapter_hook" in BFG (and I still >> haven't), which means that the IFoo() sugar doesn't work. Nobody noticed, even >> though lots of folks who use BFG also use the ZCA global API. >> >> I'm not implying that this means it's not useful or convenient for old hands. >> But the old hands don't really need it. > > Interesting. If you mostly do multi-adaptation (and utility lookups) you > won't notice it as we know multi adaptation cannot be done with the > adapter hook. Was this the case? It's hard to know. No application written using BFG can use the IFoo() pattern at all, and no one complained. The only generalization I can take away from that is that anyone who has written a BFG app and also used the ZCA APIs did not care about the IFoo() pattern. That's maybe not a really useful generalization, because many BFG apps don't use the ZCA APIs at all. - C _______________________________________________ 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 )