Re: [Zope-CMF] [dev] Should portal_setup be registered as utility?
yuppie wrote: > Hi Dieter! > > > Dieter Maurer wrote: >> Thus, why do local utilities registered by Five (i.e. these utilities are >> for Zope2 use) do not provide access to the request in the normal >> Zope2 way? > > That's what we tried first. But it turned out that Zope 3's site manager > code caches the utilities across request boundaries. AFAICT it would > have been necessary to rewrite the registry code completely to make sure > we return always the right request. > >> If they would, local utilities were much nearer to tools and >> the transition would be facilitated. > > They would be nearer to tools, but also more distant from zope 3 > utilities. I doubt that would really be a win. This won't solve this particular problem, but it may be worth looking at how other frameworks work. Pylons, for example, has the request available as "global" variable - actually a thread-local. Zope could set the request as a thread local in the same way that it sets the site manager (so you can get it via getSite()). Calling getRequest() would in many ways be cleaner than doing self.context.REQUEST or whatever, and would work regardless of whether the context was acquisition wrapped. Cheers Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book ___ 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] CMF Tests: 6 OK
Summary of messages to the cmf-tests list. Period Mon Nov 17 12:00:00 2008 UTC to Tue Nov 18 12:00:00 2008 UTC. There were 6 messages: 6 from CMF Tests. Tests passed OK --- Subject: OK : CMF-2.1 Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.5 : Linux From: CMF Tests Date: Mon Nov 17 21:00:00 EST 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/cmf-tests/2008-November/010399.html Subject: OK : CMF-2.1 Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.5 : Linux From: CMF Tests Date: Mon Nov 17 21:01:30 EST 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/cmf-tests/2008-November/010400.html Subject: OK : CMF-trunk Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.5 : Linux From: CMF Tests Date: Mon Nov 17 21:03:00 EST 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/cmf-tests/2008-November/010401.html Subject: OK : CMF-trunk Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.5 : Linux From: CMF Tests Date: Mon Nov 17 21:04:30 EST 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/cmf-tests/2008-November/010402.html Subject: OK : CMF-trunk Zope-trunk Python-2.4.5 : Linux From: CMF Tests Date: Mon Nov 17 21:06:00 EST 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/cmf-tests/2008-November/010403.html Subject: OK : CMF-trunk Zope-trunk Python-2.5.2 : Linux From: CMF Tests Date: Mon Nov 17 21:07:30 EST 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/cmf-tests/2008-November/010404.html ___ 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?
Hi Dieter! Dieter Maurer wrote: > Thus, why do local utilities registered by Five (i.e. these utilities are > for Zope2 use) do not provide access to the request in the normal > Zope2 way? That's what we tried first. But it turned out that Zope 3's site manager code caches the utilities across request boundaries. AFAICT it would have been necessary to rewrite the registry code completely to make sure we return always the right request. > If they would, local utilities were much nearer to tools and > the transition would be facilitated. They would be nearer to tools, but also more distant from zope 3 utilities. I doubt that would really be a win. 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
