> I see an intention not to break other user folder products. Given that
> the fishbowl proposal in question is supposed to make for a very small
> change, any breakage in existing products is a bug in its implementation.
I've just checked in changes that I believe address all of the
issues (t
> > a) The change to manage_* seems to be completely arbitrary,
> since we already
> >had _do* methods that meant you didn't have to call manage_users with
> >fake submit buttons. So what is the point of having manage_ ?
>
>
> They were added in response to this fishbowl proposal:
>
> http
Steve Alexander wrote:
>
> In summary:
>
> I want to make sure that things are no worse in Zope 2.5 final than in
> Zope 2.5. Any breakage caused by this API change is a bug, and needs to
> be sorted out by Zope 2.5 final.
That should have read:
I want to make sure that the user managem
A K Milton wrote:
>
>
> a) The change to manage_* seems to be completely arbitrary, since we already
>had _do* methods that meant you didn't have to call manage_users with
>fake submit buttons. So what is the point of having manage_ ?
They were added in response to this fishbowl propos
Yikes, it was pointed out to me that I typed "amk" instead of "akm".
Though I knew it was Andrew Milton and not Andrew Kuchling, I mixed up
the letters. (In fact, as I was typing it, I was thinking "wow, that
looks like Andrew Kuchling's monogram.")
--Paul
Paul Everitt wrote:
>
> Whew, th
Whew, that email (and the preceding one in the thread) is quite a
whopper. In substance, amk raises some pretty serious issues that we
need to come to grips with very quickly.
I don't have enough information to respond right now, but trust that
we'll get a good response back today.
Neo-mode
Dario Lopez-Kästen wrote:
>
> Anyway. In case you were wondering what the previous email meant, there's
> the
> actual meaning d8)
I'm sure Andy's got a point, but we haven't got the context of those points.
Is he complaining about the change in UserFolder API in Zope 2.5?
cheers,
Chris