Re: [Zope-dev] SiteRoot and VHM

2005-04-07 Thread Jens Vagelpohl
On Apr 7, 2005, at 1:45, Florent Guillaume wrote:
After spending an hour helping someone debug a site that had an hidden 
SiteRoot somewhere that prevented a virtual host monster from working, 
it was suggested to me that if there's a virtual host monster, it 
should take precedence (and deactivates) any further SiteRoot. I think 
it's a good idea.
Wouldn't that fall under Unexpected new behavior? VHMs have always 
been inert objects that don't do anything unless you specifically use 
the Mappings tab or you hand them magic URL path elements. That was 
their beauty as opposed to the dangerous SiteRoot. Now you propose 
adding magic. Magic is BAD, IMHO.

-0 on the trunk, but -1 for any maintenance branch.
jens
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] I want Zope 2.9 to use Zope 3's security architecture.

2005-04-07 Thread Jens Vagelpohl
On Apr 7, 2005, at 6:50, Andreas Jung wrote:
Even small modifications to the security machinery tend to
end up in lots of problems.
The latest prominent example: the changes introduced with
Zope 2.7.3: It took two releases (until 2.7.5) and
more than 6 months (at least in my memory) before everything
worked again as it should...
I don't know exactly to which changes do you refer. Either little
people that this problem or people did not use these releases or
people did not test enough or people did not contribute enough
to fix this bug in time *wink*.
This is probably in reference to some overeager security checks that 
caused login boxes in unexpected places. Jim and Tres fixed that for 
2.7.5. I thought that problem was older than 2.7.3, though.

jens
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] SiteRoot and VHM

2005-04-07 Thread Tino Wildenhain
Am Donnerstag, den 07.04.2005, 01:45 +0200 schrieb Florent Guillaume:
 After spending an hour helping someone debug a site that had an hidden 
 SiteRoot somewhere that prevented a virtual host monster from working, 
 it was suggested to me that if there's a virtual host monster, it 
 should take precedence (and deactivates) any further SiteRoot. I think 
 it's a good idea.

Better yet, it should just display a warning (and change its icon/title
or so) to display the problem and let the user decide the action to 
take.

Regards
Tino

___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] SiteRoot and VHM

2005-04-07 Thread Jens Vagelpohl
On Apr 7, 2005, at 9:08, Tino Wildenhain wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 07.04.2005, 01:45 +0200 schrieb Florent Guillaume:
After spending an hour helping someone debug a site that had an hidden
SiteRoot somewhere that prevented a virtual host monster from working,
it was suggested to me that if there's a virtual host monster, it
should take precedence (and deactivates) any further SiteRoot. I think
it's a good idea.
Better yet, it should just display a warning (and change its icon/title
or so) to display the problem and let the user decide the action to
take.
That's an excellent idea, and one that I would +1 on all branches ;)
jens
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Re: brain.getObject and traversal

2005-04-07 Thread Chris Withers
Andreas Jung wrote:
Chris wants to backport it to 2.7 x;  I'm opposed.  Your call.
If it does not change the default behaviour we have in 2.7.5... why not...
Cool, thanks, I'll look at merging for 2.7.6 :-)
cheers,
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope  Python Consulting
   - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] I want Zope 2.9 to use Zope 3's security architecture.

2005-04-07 Thread Jim Fulton
Richard Jones wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 02:49 am, Jim Fulton wrote:
Paul Winkler wrote:
i.e. will I still write:
   security.declareProtected(SomePermission, 'foo')
   def foo(self):
   ...
That will work, and I don't see a need to deprecate it.
Eventually, though, I expect products to migrate to
ZCML-based security declarations.

Is this a general trend for Zope 2? I'd rather see Zope 2 kinda avoid ZCML if 
possible. It's just one of those personal preference things, I suppose, but I 
know I'm not the only one who isn't that enamored of the ZCML approach. I 
actually like having the declarations all in the python code like it is in 
Zope 2.
As I said, I don't see a need to deprecate the Zope 2 style in this case.
I think that most people who've tried it find they prefer having the
security declarations separate.  This is more compelling for Zope 3 code, which
tends to have less Zope-isms to begin with,

I'd like to see the declarative style that Zope 2 move to using decorators. I 
was sitting in a presentation at PyCon talking about MetaClasses, and I 
finally *got* them. I realised that the security declarations in Zope 2 are a 
perfect fit for metaclasses and decorators. If only I had the time to 
actually implement this dream ;)
I don't see any use for metaclasses in making security declarations.
For me, metaclasses (like proxies) are deep and powerful magic that
should only be used when they are realy needed.
Note that this all comes from the perspective of someone whose only exposure 
to Zope 3 has been through two sprints. I've not actually tried to develop 
any sort of application using it. My day job is very firmly fixed in Zope 2, 
and isn't likely to change for a long time. So I'm definitely speaking from 
ignorance of real-world application development in Zope 3.
Fair enough.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   Python Powered!
CTO  (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com   http://www.zope.org
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] [Zope 2.8] Inclusion of ExtendedPathIndex?

2005-04-07 Thread Andreas Jung
I wonder if it is of public interest to include the ExtendedPathIndex from 
Plone in Zope 2.8.
It offers some the nice extension  to limit the depth of the search and 
improves building navigation-trees
or similar structures. Opinions?

Andreas 

pgp8nmyWX3hEd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope 2.8] Inclusion of ExtendedPathIndex?

2005-04-07 Thread Tres Seaver
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Andreas Jung wrote:
 I wonder if it is of public interest to include the ExtendedPathIndex
 from Plone in Zope 2.8.
 It offers some the nice extension  to limit the depth of the search and
 improves building navigation-trees
 or similar structures. Opinions?

I doubt many folks on this list know the code that well.  Are you
thinking to lift the features you mention, making them part of the
regular PathIndex?   Also, what is the IP status of the code?


Tres.
- --
===
Tres Seaver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Zope Corporation  Zope Dealers   http://www.zope.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCVSDhGqWXf00rNCgRAklQAJ0WH6k23gjaEroC7MoTC1pN/kSaFQCeJ9vg
GaRdPAEOYOa0D0eac17VmoQ=
=ulEx
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Re: SiteRoot and VHM

2005-04-07 Thread Laurence Rowe
-1 for removing it. I think it's a cool feature :-)
I like the ability to use a 'blank' SiteRoot (one with a blank base and 
path) in conjunction with an access rule to set request variables when I 
access my site in through a particular point (eg set the plone_skin 
variable when I access my site through /admin or force a particular 
language when I access my site through /language-name). This is in 
addition to using VHM and apache rewrite rules in the standard way.

I guess this could be done with more complicated rewrite rules but then 
I become dependent on accessing the site trough apache and lose some 
flexibility.

Laurence
Florent Guillaume wrote:
After spending an hour helping someone debug a site that had an hidden 
SiteRoot somewhere that prevented a virtual host monster from working, 
it was suggested to me that if there's a virtual host monster, it should 
take precedence (and deactivates) any further SiteRoot. I think it's a 
good idea.

Should I create a patch ?
Florent
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] [Zope 2.8] Inclusion of ExtendedPathIndex?

2005-04-07 Thread Florent Guillaume
Andreas Jung  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I wonder if it is of public interest to include the ExtendedPathIndex from 
 Plone in Zope 2.8.
 It offers some the nice extension  to limit the depth of the search and 
 improves building navigation-trees or similar structures. Opinions?

+1 if it's a separate new index (don't change the existing PathIndex).

Does it provide a way of cataloging the ordering of children? Otherwise
I don't see how you can build navigation tree using it (unless you don't
care about ordering of course).

Florent

-- 
Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France)   CTO, Director of RD
+33 1 40 33 71 59   http://nuxeo.com   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] I want Zope 2.9 to use Zope 3's security architecture.

2005-04-07 Thread Martijn Faassen
Richard Jones wrote:
[snip]
Is this a general trend for Zope 2? I'd rather see Zope 2 kinda avoid ZCML if 
possible.
The Five integration philosophy at least, is that it makes use of ZCML 
*possible* in Zope 2, but not at all mandatory. Five tries to mess with
the innards of Zope 2 as much as possible, because it's complicated 
enough to add Zope 3 to Zope 2 already; we don't want to worry about 
changing Zope 2 (or Zope 3).

Zope 2.9 has traditionally been seen as a version of Zope 2 where the 
innards *will* change to integrate deeper into Zope 3. Five's philosophy 
makes it impossible to do certain kinds of Zope 3 integration with Zope 
2, such as security in particular. Though in fact I'm surprised how much 
*is* already possible given the limitations Five has; I think that's an 
interesting finding.

Anyway, you might want to give Five a spin one day. Perhaps you'll 
change your mind about ZCML. Five introduces Zope 3 concepts more 
gradually to the Zope 2 hacker than Zope 3 itself, so it may be less 
overwhelming; Zope 3 certainly sometimes tends to overwhelm me, still.

Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] [Zope 2.8] Inclusion of ExtendedPathIndex?

2005-04-07 Thread Martijn Faassen
Andreas Jung wrote:
I wonder if it is of public interest to include the ExtendedPathIndex
 from Plone in Zope 2.8. It offers some the nice extension  to limit
the depth of the search and improves building navigation-trees or
similar structures. Opinions?
While the feature sounds cool, I tend to be a bit worried about delaying 
the Zope 2.8 release with this, though of course I shouldn't shout so 
loudly as we just added in Five. Then again, we had significant numbers 
of people working on that for the biggest part of a week...

Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope 2.8] Inclusion of ExtendedPathIndex?

2005-04-07 Thread Andreas Jung

--On Donnerstag, 7. April 2005 8:00 Uhr -0400 Tres Seaver 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I doubt many folks on this list know the code that well.  Are you
thinking to lift the features you mention, making them part of the
regular PathIndex?   Also, what is the IP status of the code?
It extends the PathIndex and has a different behaviour. So making the 
functionality part
of the existing PathIndex would break the exisiting behaviour therefore it 
should be included
as second path index. The license is BSD or ZPL but not GPL  :-)

Andreas

pgppabT3AU8Sz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] [Zope 2.8] Inclusion of ExtendedPathIndex?

2005-04-07 Thread Andreas Jung

--On Donnerstag, 7. April 2005 14:49 Uhr +0200 Martijn Faassen 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Andreas Jung wrote:
I wonder if it is of public interest to include the ExtendedPathIndex
 from Plone in Zope 2.8. It offers some the nice extension  to limit
the depth of the search and improves building navigation-trees or
similar structures. Opinions?
While the feature sounds cool, I tend to be a bit worried about delaying
the Zope 2.8 release with this,
Why delaying?
-aj

pgphB0rDpD1Y8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] To ZCML or not ;-)

2005-04-07 Thread Chris Withers
Richard Jones wrote:
Is this a general trend for Zope 2? I'd rather see Zope 2 kinda avoid ZCML if 
possible. It's just one of those personal preference things, I suppose, but I 
know I'm not the only one who isn't that enamored of the ZCML approach. I 
actually like having the declarations all in the python code like it is in 
Zope 2.
Am I right in thinking that the XML part of ZCML is layered over python 
functionality underneath? If so, how hard would it be to provide an
alternative to the baroque XML? - the bit of ZCML I don't like ;-)

cheers,
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope  Python Consulting
   - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] To ZCML or not ;-)

2005-04-07 Thread Jim Fulton
Chris Withers wrote:
Richard Jones wrote:
Is this a general trend for Zope 2? I'd rather see Zope 2 kinda avoid 
ZCML if possible. It's just one of those personal preference things, I 
suppose, but I know I'm not the only one who isn't that enamored of 
the ZCML approach. I actually like having the declarations all in the 
python code like it is in Zope 2.

Am I right in thinking that the XML part of ZCML is layered over python 
functionality underneath? If so, how hard would it be to provide an
alternative to the baroque XML? - the bit of ZCML I don't like ;-)
It's is theoretically possible, but not really worth the effort.
I'll note that ZCML has gotten progressively simpler over the years.
It continues to get simpler.  For example, now that we we can say more
about adapters in Python, a typical adapter registration looks like:
  adapter factory=.Myfactory /
Also, for various reasons, ZCML took on implementation capabilities.
We're looking at ways to move that implementation capability
back into Python, where it belongs, which will make page definition
easier.  I expect that page definitions in the future will look more
like:
  page name=foo.html class=.FooView.html permission=zope.View /
Jim
--
Jim Fulton   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   Python Powered!
CTO  (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com   http://www.zope.org
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] Re: SiteRoot and VHM

2005-04-07 Thread Paul Winkler
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 12:55:09PM +0100, Laurence Rowe wrote:
 -1 for removing it. I think it's a cool feature :-)
 
 I like the ability to use a 'blank' SiteRoot (one with a blank base and 
 path) in conjunction with an access rule to set request variables when I 
 access my site in through a particular point (eg set the plone_skin 
 variable when I access my site through /admin or force a particular 
 language when I access my site through /language-name). This is in 
 addition to using VHM and apache rewrite rules in the standard way.

I'm curious, what does the SiteRoot buy you over just doing all that in 
an access rule?
 
-- 

Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] [Zope 2.8] Inclusion of ExtendedPathIndex?

2005-04-07 Thread Martijn Faassen
Andreas Jung wrote:

--On Donnerstag, 7. April 2005 14:49 Uhr +0200 Martijn Faassen 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Andreas Jung wrote:
I wonder if it is of public interest to include the ExtendedPathIndex
 from Plone in Zope 2.8. It offers some the nice extension  to limit
the depth of the search and improves building navigation-trees or
similar structures. Opinions?

While the feature sounds cool, I tend to be a bit worried about delaying
the Zope 2.8 release with this,
 
Why delaying?
Adding any features could delay the release, right? Perhaps this one is 
really easy so it won't introduce a large risk of delay; I can't 
evaluate that.

Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] [Zope 2.8] Inclusion of ExtendedPathIndex?

2005-04-07 Thread Andreas Jung

--On Donnerstag, 7. April 2005 20:15 Uhr +0200 Martijn Faassen 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Andreas Jung wrote:

--On Donnerstag, 7. April 2005 14:49 Uhr +0200 Martijn Faassen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
I wonder if it is of public interest to include the ExtendedPathIndex
 from Plone in Zope 2.8. It offers some the nice extension  to limit
the depth of the search and improves building navigation-trees or
similar structures. Opinions?

While the feature sounds cool, I tend to be a bit worried about delaying
the Zope 2.8 release with this,
Why delaying?
Adding any features could delay the release, right? Perhaps this one is
really easy so it won't introduce a large risk of delay; I can't evaluate
that.
Don't worry...everything's under control :-) Except the 2.8.a2 release 
almost
all my releases where on the track.

Andreas


pgpRhMOXupP7U.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Re: SiteRoot and VHM

2005-04-07 Thread Laurence Rowe
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 12:55:09PM +0100, Laurence Rowe wrote:
-1 for removing it. I think it's a cool feature :-)
I like the ability to use a 'blank' SiteRoot (one with a blank base and 
path) in conjunction with an access rule to set request variables when I 
access my site in through a particular point (eg set the plone_skin 
variable when I access my site through /admin or force a particular 
language when I access my site through /language-name). This is in 
addition to using VHM and apache rewrite rules in the standard way.

I'm curious, what does the SiteRoot buy you over just doing all that in 
an access rule?
 
Having just read up on  REQUEST.setServerURL(SiteRootBASE) and 
REQUEST.setVirtualRoot(SiteRootPATH). I was about to say nothing at all 
- I'm just being ignorant, but it looks like the answer is actually 
'flexibility'.

From http://www.zope.org/Members/4am/SiteAccess2/vhosting

If a SiteRooted folder is ever accessed through URLs with a base or path 
that does not get rewritten to match the Base and Path of the SiteRoot, 
you should make the SiteRoot's Base and Path blank and dynamically 
create SiteRootPATH/SiteRootBASE variables. For example, if you made a 
'Zope' global-access prefix as described above, then the 'else' part 
should contain something like dtml-call REQUEST.set('SiteRootPATH', 
'/').


Without the blank site root you lose the flexibility of these methods 
working when the site is not being virtual hosted, which is quite handy 
while developing.

Laurence
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] To ZCML or not ;-)

2005-04-07 Thread Lennart Regebro
Richard Jones wrote:
 Is this a general trend for Zope 2? I'd rather see Zope 2 kinda avoid ZCML if
 possible. It's just one of those personal preference things, I suppose, but I
 know I'm not the only one who isn't that enamored of the ZCML approach.

ZCML started out for me (and as an experinced zope2 programmer I guess
the experience may not be that unusual) as ooh, my, lots to learn,
why is it that complex? Then it becames oh, it's a consistent way of
doing all those thinks that weren't very pythonic, like defining page
templates, and then finally I grasped it with ah, it's really the
best parts of aspect orientation; you make all these separate modules,
and you tie them together with ZCML!

Like XML or not, the approach of moving this type of meta-information
to ZCML rocks.

You know the feeling when a third party product has the wrong
permission or no permission at all on something? What are you gonna
do? Subclass: Lots of work. Patch: You gotta keep it updated. With
ZCML, you override it. TADA!
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )