Fredrik Lundh wrote: > Nick Vatamaniuc wrote: > >> At the same time one could claim that Python already has certain >> policies that makes it seem as if it has a component model. > > every Python object surely qualifies as a component, for any non-myopic > definition of that word, and everything inside a Python program is an > object. so yes, Python has a component model, and Python programmers > are using that model all over the place. > > what might be missing is support for publishing additional metadata > using a standardized vocabulary, and a way to access that data with- > out having to actually create the object. > > implementing this using existing mechanisms is trivial (as the endless > stream of interface/component/adapter/trait implementations have shown > us); coming up with a good-enough-to-be-useful-for-enough-people > vocabulary is a lot harder.
There's no doubt that Python's excellent introspection mechanism allows an outside RAD-like tool to inspect the workings of any Python object. But that does not make it a component model in my original use of the term on this thread. A RAD tool needs to know what properties and events within a class can be manipulated visually, and it needs to be able to serialize those properties and events so that they are set at run-time automatically once an object is created. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
