Python component model

[Edward Diener No Spam]

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.