[TransWarp] Input wanted: addresses, adaptation, and attributes

[alexander smishlajev]

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 
>> sure.
> 
> 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()' 
> method.
> 
> 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 
explanation.

best wishes,
alex.