[Twisted-Python] New components questions
radix at twistedmatrix.com
Fri May 7 19:04:38 EDT 2004
Itamar Shtull-Trauring wrote:
>>AFAIC, persist= argument to adaptation doesn't make sense and shouldn't
>>be worried about much. Deprecated backwards compatibility would be
>>*nice*, of course, but don't worry about it if it's a big problem and
>>nobody pipes up about the fact they're using it.
> I have full backwards compat already, though I'd encourage people to use
> zope's code directly instead of the compat layer. Question is if this
> specific backwards compat feature can be dropped (this will allow
> Componentized to work with straight-off zope.interface correctly, right
> now it only works via backwards-compat code). That is, I am asking if
> persist=False can be dropped for Componentized.
I think so.
>>Is the current situation duplicating code? If a "registry" is basically
>>just a big dict or something, then no big deal... but I think sharing
>>code is a good idea, if there is a significant amount of code involved.
> No, the zope.interface has the class definition for a registry,
> zope.component just adds a little utility wrapper around it and provides
> a global *instance* of the registry that apps can use.
Hmm. How about using their registry if it's available?
Twisted | Christopher Armstrong: International Man of Twistery
Radix | Release Manager, Twisted Project
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 256 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://twistedmatrix.com/pipermail/twisted-python/attachments/20040507/889c805e/attachment.pgp
More information about the Twisted-Python