Martin Aspeli wrote at 2007-4-25 19:58 +0100:
...
If the root of your CMF/Plone site contains content items, they need to
avoid collision with magical objects that are there primarily to make
our lives easier as programmers (since you can acquire them, and they
interact with Zope security
Martin Aspeli wrote at 2007-4-15 16:45 +0100:
...
Aesthetics were not the original reason for moving down this route, so
it's a little unfair to cast it in that light. The main drivers, as I
recall, were to encourage API usage that would allow us to move tools
out of content space eventually
On 4/15/07, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alec Mitchell wrote:
On 4/15/07, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Alec Mitchell wrote at 2007-4-12 06:59 -0700:
...
... deprecation of getToolByName ...
which is that there's no practical reason other than
Balazs Ree wrote:
Acquisition is raping Zope3, it seems.
That must surely be quotation of the month. :)
Martin
___
Zope-CMF maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf
See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Alec Mitchell wrote at 2007-4-12 06:59 -0700:
...
... deprecation of getToolByName ...
which is that there's no practical reason other than
aesthetics to deprecate getToolByName at this point.
A very good point: let's deprecate deprecations done just for
aethetical
Rob Miller wrote:
i'll add yet another me too to this chorus. removing getToolByName has
become considerably more trouble than it's worth. currently, i see basically
two options being suggested:
- adding (and then living with) yet more code in Five, which changes the
behaviour of clean,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Kapil Thangavelu wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 06:16:23 -0400, yuppie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi!
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
yuppie wrote:
Kapil's also right when he says that utilities by principle are
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Kapil Thangavelu wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 06:16:23 -0400, yuppie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi!
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
yuppie wrote:
Kapil's also right when he says that utilities by
Previously Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Kapil Thangavelu wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 06:16:23 -0400, yuppie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi!
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
yuppie wrote:
Kapil's also right when he says
Previously Wichert Akkerman wrote:
I have a suspicion that this will be easy for most utilities. We can
put that framework in place for CMF 2.1 and start refactoring the tools
into utilities on CMF trunk.
A quick look seems that there are a few common uses of acquisition in
the tools: to get
On 4/15/07, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Alec Mitchell wrote at 2007-4-12 06:59 -0700:
...
... deprecation of getToolByName ...
which is that there's no practical reason other than
aesthetics to deprecate getToolByName at this point.
A very good point: let's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alec Mitchell wrote:
On 4/15/07, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Alec Mitchell wrote at 2007-4-12 06:59 -0700:
...
... deprecation of getToolByName ...
which is that there's no practical reason other than
aesthetics
Alec Mitchell wrote:
On 4/15/07, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Alec Mitchell wrote at 2007-4-12 06:59 -0700:
...
... deprecation of getToolByName ...
which is that there's no practical reason other than
aesthetics to deprecate getToolByName at this point.
A very
On 4/15/07, Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alec Mitchell wrote:
On 4/15/07, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Alec Mitchell wrote at 2007-4-12 06:59 -0700:
...
... deprecation of getToolByName ...
which is that
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 06:16:23 -0400, yuppie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi!
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
yuppie wrote:
Kapil's also right when he says that utilities by principle are
context-less components.
By principle all Zope 3 code might depend on setSite to work as
expected. We
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:01:38 +0200 yuppie wrote:
Godefroid Chapelle wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 10 Apr 2007, at 10:30, yuppie wrote:
c) improving five.lsm (Rocky)
AFAICS this is an other attempt to resolve the same issue:
http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2007-March/025708.html
Hi!
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
yuppie wrote:
Kapil's also right when he says that utilities by
principle are context-less components.
By principle all Zope 3 code might depend on setSite to work as
expected. We just don't pass that 'site context' explicitly to the
component as in
Hi!
Balazs Ree wrote:
The root problem is that the z3 component lookup, in case site managers
are chained, is accessing the data of the chained site managers directly
and bypassing its code. Iow it does not matter whatever acquisition
wrapping you add in five.lsm. If there is any other site
yuppie wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
yuppie wrote:
Kapil's also right when he says that utilities by principle are
context-less components.
By principle all Zope 3 code might depend on setSite to work as
expected.
setSite() is something that influences the place (= registry)
Alec Mitchell wrote at 2007-4-12 06:59 -0700:
...
... deprecation of getToolByName ...
which is that there's no practical reason other than
aesthetics to deprecate getToolByName at this point.
A very good point: let's deprecate deprecations done just for
aethetical reasons :-)
This still
Alec Mitchell wrote:
On 4/11/07, yuppie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
Kapil Thangavelu wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:09:27 -0400, Jens Vagelpohl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 10 Apr 2007, at 10:30, yuppie wrote:
Currently non-five.lsm site managers don't work in CMF, see this
thread:
Hi!
Kapil Thangavelu wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:09:27 -0400, Jens Vagelpohl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10 Apr 2007, at 10:30, yuppie wrote:
Currently non-five.lsm site managers don't work in CMF, see this thread:
http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2007-March/025817.html
Proposed
yuppie wrote:
I'm judging by the solution itself *and* by the fact that we made a
decision long ago and released a beta based on that decision. We should
reverse that decision only if we are sure it was a mistake.
I think it was a mistake. It's ok, we all make mistakes. It's good that
we
23 matches
Mail list logo
