[Zope3-dev] Allowing views to be registered for classes rather than interfaces.

[Jim Fulton]

Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Stephan Richter wrote:
> 
>>On Monday 14 July 2003 16:40, Jim Fulton wrote:
>>
>>>I'm quite open to this proposal and would be curious to here what other
>>>people think.
>>
>>YAGNI for the limitations you state in your E-mail. If someone is not using 
>>schemas for their content objects, they are not understanding the 
>>framework. ;-) Isn't it beautiful not to write tedious HTML forms anymore? 
> 
> 
> I'm not convinced all schemas are then really generic enough to 
> need to be in their separate interface hierarchy; they seem to be
> specific to one particular content object.

You are absolutely right.  Stephan was simply arguing the benefits
of defining an interface early in the process, He wasn't arguing for
a separate hoerarchy.

> The point about the interface hierarchy is to allow multiple implementations
> of the same interface. Are the schemas described here designed with this
> in mind? Or does one really only ever expect a single implementation?

Ah, this is important. The point of the separate interface hierarchy was *not*
to support multiple implementations.  The point of the separate interface hierarchy
was to protect UI designers from needing to dig through the application code.
I suspect that we should call BS on this.

Tres has argued (with merit) that only interfaces designed to support multiple
implementations should go in a separate hierarchy.

Jim

-- 
Jim Fulton           mailto:jim@zope.com       Python Powered!
CTO                  (703) 361-1714            http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation     http://www.zope.com       http://www.zope.org