Sidnei da Silva wrote:
| | 2. Is the above behaviour pluggable at all?
|
| Not at all.
|
| Should it be? Can it be without impacting on performance?
I don't think so. I would expect there's only one sane way to do it.
I'm not sure I agree, I've read lots of different views on this sort of
On 4/21/05, Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aha, as does PAS I see. Does this mean RESPONSE.unauthorized should be a
responsibility of the user folder?
I think it should be, yes. Or, actually the responsibility of the user object.
--
Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo http://www.nuxeo.com/
CPS
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 4/21/05, Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aha, as does PAS I see. Does this mean RESPONSE.unauthorized should be a
responsibility of the user folder?
I think it should be, yes. Or, actually the responsibility of the user object.
Why the difference?
cheers,
Chris
--
I never noticed this before today, but apparently RAMCacheManager is
sensitive to whether cached items are acquired from the context or from
the container. (Zope 2.7.3 but afaict it should behave the
same in any recent version).
Is that intended behavior or is this a bug?
Let's say I have a CMF
This is due to how Python Scripts compute their cache keys. The
relevant snippet from PythonScript._exec() is:
asgns = self.getBindingAssignments()
name_context = asgns.getAssignedName('name_context', None)
if name_context:
keyset[name_context]
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 12:27:18AM +0200, Stefan H. Holek wrote:
This is due to how Python Scripts compute their cache keys. The
relevant snippet from PythonScript._exec() is:
asgns = self.getBindingAssignments()
name_context = asgns.getAssignedName('name_context',
