On 7/2/09 4:12 PM, Tres Seaver wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Malthe Borch wrote: >> 2009/7/2 Tim Hoffman<t...@zute.net>: >>> I think you woul lose that capability with just name based registrations. >> Yes, but perhaps for the better; it was always problematic to use >> component adaptation to create specialized views based on the iro, >> because of the order of adaptation, e.g. with viewlets: >> >> context, request, view, manager >> >> You will easily run into situations where you need to do a lot of >> seeming superflouous component registrations because you've >> specialized on ``context``, say. >> >> I think there is a better scheme out there which does not rely in this >> way on multi-adaptation. > > The fact that multi-adaptation can be hard doesn't mean it can't also be > useful: I don't see *any* way to achieve Tim's goals without something > like an IRO.
You can either: - unwind the "IRO" and attach all the "interfaces" to the context object directly. - use a class as the context that has the specialized interface, but subclasses something that uses the default interface. There's nothing particularly magical about IRO except convenience. - C _______________________________________________ Repoze-dev mailing list Repoze-dev@lists.repoze.org http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev
