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 an
-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
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 m
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?
-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)
iEYEARECAAYFAkkgiUwACgkQRAx
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> yuppie wrote:
>> 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?
>
> The reason why we don't register the setup
Previously Charlie Clark wrote:
>
> 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?
>
Previously Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> yuppie wrote:
> > 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:
>
yuppie wrote:
> 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
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 t
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
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 b
Summary of messages to the cmf-tests list.
Period Sat Nov 15 12:00:00 2008 UTC to Sun Nov 16 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: Sat Nov 15 20:57:50 EST 2008
URL: ht
13 matches
Mail list logo
