[Zope3-dev] Re: registerUtility(component, interface) vs provideUtility(interface, component) vs provideUtility(component, interface)

[Christian Theune]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> Christian Theune wrote:
>> see subject. What's the reason that all three flavours (still?) exist? I
>>  just had a really hard time finding the spelling I need.
> 
> ztapi.provideUtility(interface, component) is discouraged and should go
> away. I didn't do this for Zope 3.3 because of a lack of time.
> 
> zope.component.provideUtility(component, interface=optional) is a
> convenience spelling for:
> 
>   zope.component.getGlobalSiteManager().registerUtility(
>       component, interface=optional).
> 
> The order of arguments is the same. I think Jim wants the convenience
> functions in zope.component (provide*) to go away in favor of the
> explicit spelling through the global site manager. I think that before
> we do that, we should first abolish the term "site manager" from the
> zope.component API (because we don't call it site manager anymore).

Hmm. Hmm. zope.component.provide* is *very* convenient. What would the
new spelling be?

zope.component.<globalsitemanagerspelling>.register*?

Isn't the global site manager something else then zope.component?
Because zope.component uses the current thread-local site-manager,
depending on what was set during traversal etc., isn't it?

Christian

- --
gocept gmbh & co. kg - forsterstraße 29 - 06112 halle/saale - germany
www.gocept.com - ct at gocept.com - phone +49 345 122 9889 7 -
fax +49 345 122 9889 1 - zope and plone consulting and development

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFE+ZTLdUt9X/gknwIRAqdVAJ9QPwqjivy9FY+drfHShrIqu4ggLACfYFzH
hp7q9GQi/FAEdA0qdg0fGW4=
=msXX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----