[TransWarp] Input wanted: addresses, adaptation, and attributes
alex at ank-sia.com
Thu Jun 12 09:04:31 EDT 2003
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>>> Will this break too much? Does the requirement of specifying an
>>> interface for a binding (or lookup) seem too strict?
>> does this mean that each config.getProperty or binding call will have
>> to be rewritten with 'adaptTo' argument? if yes, that would hurt, for
> Pretty much any binding call that uses URL schemes other than 'import:'
> or 'config:'. getProperty would be unaffected, as would binding lookups
> using 'import:' or 'config:', because they already use (or would use) a
> context to do retrievals, instead of the address having a 'retrieve()'
> So, the affected schemes would be: smtp, uuid, ldap, sybase, pgsql,
> gadfly, logfile, logging.logger, lockfile (and its variants), win32.dde,
> http, ftp, https, file, pkgfile, zconfig.schema, and shellcmd. Any
> binding using these schemes would need an explicit adaptTo or an
> explicit adapt(), otherwise they would just return an address object.
i see. well, in our code this won't break too much. thank you for the
More information about the PEAK