2009/4/29 Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com:
When you do need it, the multiplexing is awful handy (e.g. when trying to
look up a view based on a context type and a request type).
Except there's always this situation:
View 1)
for=IDocument IRequest
View 2)
for=Interface IPostRequest
One of the epiphanies Tres came up with during a bout of drinking is that the
#1
navel-gaze below (the unittest indirection one) doesn't need a ZCML
registration
(or any real component registrations at all except in the unit test).
Instead, to do unit testing indirection, say for a test like
2009/4/29 Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com:
That seems completely broken to me. It also doesn't match my (limited)
experience but I've never fought with it hard enough to know.
That should have read: adaptation is like an alphabet:
ABZ
ABC
ZBC
The real problem with doing the more clever
On Apr 27, 2009, at 1:31 PM, Reed O'Brien wrote:
On Apr 27, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
I'm actually having a bit of trouble naming those things. At first
they were
called plugin types, then provides types, then finally
component types.
None of those names really work for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris McDonough wrote:
On 4/28/09 3:01 AM, Malthe Borch wrote:
snip
I think we should reconsider the way we decide on views and related
components. Perhaps using a routes-like approach, e.g.
browser:page
...
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 1:35 AM, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com wrote:
I think we should reconsider the way we decide on views and related
components. Perhaps using a routes-like approach, e.g.
browser:page
...
for=.interfaces.IHelpCenter .interfaces.IDocument
On 4/29/09 4:32 PM, Ian Bicking wrote:
Some questions that come to mind:
When I was discussing cases like this with Rob Miller, we also found most
plausible pluggability points required specific configuration. For this
example there's the client_templates value. You could possibly have a
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Malthe Borch mbo...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/27 Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com:
Answering myself with the kind of navel-gazing which is sure to drive
Tres
nuts ;-):
Not answering anything, but this thread is as good a place as any:
I think the issue of
2009/4/28 Chris Rossi ch...@archimedeanco.com:
``zope.component.getAllUtilitiesFor`` does that.
Might be called ``getAllUtilitiesRegisteredFor``, although there's
another variant, too, ``getUtilitiesFor``.
\malthe
___
Repoze-dev mailing list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris McDonough wrote:
On 4/27/09 1:28 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
But anyway, yeah. For someone who has never used zope.component, though,
it's
really not that important (more strictly compares to zope.component).
Reading
On 4/27/09 2:12 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris McDonough wrote:
On 4/27/09 1:28 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
But anyway, yeah. For someone who has never used zope.component, though,
it's
really not that important (more
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Malthe Borch wrote:
2009/4/27 Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com:
I can't see much reason for us to try to share code with people who
won't even attempt a rational evaluation of the candidate. -1 to
bikeshedding this thing further; +1 to an 'svn
On 4/27/09 1:18 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
I find the introduction lacking; why do I care about indirection,
what's the benefit.
Good point.
Um. Why *do* we care about indirection? In particular, why do we care about
this sort of generic-function-ish dispatch pattern we call adaptation?
Hey,
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 6:19 AM, Malthe Borch mbo...@gmail.com wrote:
I realize this documentation[1] is still in progress; yet, here are
some comments, posted to the list to maybe encourage some kind of
debate (since it's likely that there will be several consumers of this
package in
14 matches
Mail list logo
