[Zope-CMF] [dev] Should portal_setup be registered as utility?
Hi! CMFDefault registers portal_setup as utility. Some code in CMF depends on that. Plone doesn't doesn't register portal_setup as utility: http://dev.plone.org/plone/changeset/18763 That causes some trouble in Plone: http://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/7714 The same issue was reported as CMF bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/+bug/263525 Due to a misunderstanding the CMF bug was marked as 'Won't Fix'. Questions: Is there a good reason why Plone doesn't register portal_setup as utility? Does the same reason apply to CMFDefault? Do we have to support registered and not registered portal_setup tools? Cheers, Yuppie ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] [dev] five.localsitemanager: site manager names
Hi! Trying to clean up site creation in CMF, I noticed this issue: zope.app.component uses a hardcoded '++etc++site' as name, but five.localsitemanager's make_site function computes it like this: name = 'five' path = getattr(obj, 'getPhysicalPath', None) if path is not None and callable(path): name = '/'.join(path()) So the name is location dependent. Moving the site would require updating the name, but there is no event handler that does it. I see 2 possible ways to fix this: 1.) Add an event handler that updates the name. 2.) Use the same hardcoded name as Zope 3. A customized __repr__ method could still show the complete path, at least as long as the active site is set accordingly. Any thoughts? I prefer solution 2. Cheers, Yuppie ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] [dev] Should portal_setup be registered as utility?
Am 16.11.2008 um 16:17 schrieb yuppie: Questions: Is there a good reason why Plone doesn't register portal_setup as utility? Does the same reason apply to CMFDefault? Do we have to support registered and not registered portal_setup tools? Does this relate to the discussions (earlier this year? last year?) on which tools should be moved to utilities? I fully support Jens' justification of the utility approach. Things are a bit weird at the moment with some things still being tools and others utilities but once I got used to the utility approach I found it saner. I don't think that we can support both approaches and if Plone needs a wrapper around the utility with access to the request object then surely that is something for Plone? Charlie -- Charlie Clark Helmholtzstr. 20 Düsseldorf D- 40215 Tel: +49-211-938-5360 GSM: +49-178-782-6226 ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] [dev] Should portal_setup be registered as utility?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Nov 16, 2008, at 18:11 , yuppie wrote: I don't like to remove CMF's portal_setup registration *if* CMF itself is not affected by this issue. +1 jens -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkkgiUwACgkQRAx5nvEhZLIhEQCdEkuvKVD02TAwCbK0zfPAWqcK RYUAmgLCUroC7XUanE7wxnTNG/sii6MS =nO8h -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] [dev] Should portal_setup be registered as utility?
Previously yuppie wrote: I'm not sure if the import/export steps used by CMF are clean or if nobody recognized the issue because nobody runs import/export steps from a portal_setup tool that was looked up as utility. Maybe the issue just shows up in combination with portal_quickinstall? I don't like to remove CMF's portal_setup registration *if* CMF itself is not affected by this issue. Imho registering portal_setup as a utility as long as any CMF tool uses self.REQUEST is problematic since it makes it impossible for import/export steps to use such tools. Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] [dev] Should portal_setup be registered as utility?
Am 16.11.2008 um 22:30 schrieb Wichert Akkerman: Imho registering portal_setup as a utility as long as any CMF tool uses self.REQUEST is problematic since it makes it impossible for import/export steps to use such tools. Surely, that's what deprecation messages are for? We do want to move to utilites. Charlie -- Charlie Clark Helmholtzstr. 20 Düsseldorf D- 40215 Tel: +49-211-938-5360 GSM: +49-178-782-6226 ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] [dev] Should portal_setup be registered as utility?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Nov 16, 2008, at 22:30 , Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously yuppie wrote: I don't like to remove CMF's portal_setup registration *if* CMF itself is not affected by this issue. Imho registering portal_setup as a utility as long as any CMF tool uses self.REQUEST is problematic since it makes it impossible for import/export steps to use such tools. I suggest we *look* at the current CMF situation before acting on the assumption that non-utility tools are used in (and break) CMF import/ export steps. It's been working fine so far. jens -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkkgmSsACgkQRAx5nvEhZLJxSACeJmQUFUNTjayJYLsSRIAolcpz RZwAnjEu4F9Lc6IbTsklEkXpbKgHPfkI =6vSX -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] [dev] Should portal_setup be registered as utility?
Previously Jens Vagelpohl wrote: On Nov 16, 2008, at 22:30 , Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously yuppie wrote: I don't like to remove CMF's portal_setup registration *if* CMF itself is not affected by this issue. Imho registering portal_setup as a utility as long as any CMF tool uses self.REQUEST is problematic since it makes it impossible for import/export steps to use such tools. I suggest we *look* at the current CMF situation before acting on the assumption that non-utility tools are used in (and break) CMF import/ export steps. It's been working fine so far. I'm sure CMF import/export steps are fine. The CMF tools are not, and third party products use those in their steps. That is exactly the problem we where seeing in Plone, and which is why I removed the utility registration. Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
