[Zope3-dev] Back to Job editing

[Jim Fulton]

Jeffrey P Shell wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 3, 2002, at 11:28  PM, Magnus Heino wrote:
> 
>>
>>>> Which makes a degree of sense - it's easier to protect a single 
>>>> 'update'
>>>> method than to allow direct attribute setting.  But, with Schema and
>>>> Python 2.2+ Properties, is it still the right way?
>>>
>>>
>>> I hope the right way will change with these new things, but we're 
>>> currently
>>> in a phase where we're grasping around for idioms concerning this.
>>> The broader question is "should I make this a property or a method?".
>>>
>>> In theory properties/schema help with introspection and I think the code
>>> can look more readable too.
>>
>>
>> Will it be easy to extend existing types with new properties too?
> 
> 
> There's the Annotations system, which I haven't looked at at all (is it 
> implemented yet?).

Yes.

> This is the other avenue I want to explore with what I've been playing 
> with with JobBoardEx and my extensions - instead of the JobList class 
> instantiating the instances of the local Job class directly, it queries 
> for an IJob factory to stamp out a new Job instance.  This would allow 
> me to subclass and extend Job, while still fitting in with the 
> expectations of its container, JobList.  This should be possible today, 
> but I have no idea how to spell it.  Or maybe adapters are the right 
> way...  *shrug*

You may want to do this, but the JobBoardEx author may not want you to.
This is their privaledge.  IMO, It's perfectly OK for someone to provide
non-extensible containers. Something I like about the job board is that it's
an example of a very simple product that isn't heavily loaded with framework
dependencies.

Jim

-- 
Jim Fulton           mailto:jim@zope.com       Python Powered!
CTO                  (888) 344-4332            http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation     http://www.zope.com       http://www.zope.org