On Apr 22, 2006, at 6:45 AM, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 22 Apr 2006, at 11:22, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Hi Jens,
Previously Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
After this somewhat muted discussion I think the best way forward
would be to create a branch and merg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 22 Apr 2006, at 11:22, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Hi Jens,
Previously Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
After this somewhat muted discussion I think the best way forward
would be to create a branch and merge whatever you think should be
merged, and then we'l
Hi Jens,
Previously Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> After this somewhat muted discussion I think the best way forward
> would be to create a branch and merge whatever you think should be
> merged, and then we'll go from there deciding what gets merged back
> to the trunk. I'd think almost everything
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 16 Apr 2006, at 15:48, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Is there any reason not to merge the MutablePropertySheets from
PlonePAS
into PAS? The implementation is quite trivial:
http://dev.plone.org/collective/browser/PlonePAS/trunk/interfaces/
propert
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 20 Apr 2006, at 14:16, Clemens Robbenhaar wrote:
Basically, the expectation you mention is unrealistic for most user
folders out there.
Ok, got the point. As I said, I have been arguing from some (dummy?)
end-user perspective. I guess other us
Hi Jens,
> > Usually I am not fond of magic either, but from an user point of
> > view ("user" = someone who might write ZODB Python scripts using
> > PAS or
> > the like) I am used to have all changes to objects saved magically, so
> > why not user properties?
>
> This is true - if thi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Usually I am not fond of magic either, but from an user point of
view ("user" = someone who might write ZODB Python scripts using
PAS or
the like) I am used to have all changes to objects saved magically, so
why not user properties?
This is tru
Jens Vagelpohl writes:
>
> So my own opinion is that I don't like the persistence magic for
> setting properties. IMHO the methods on the properties plugins should
> be called explicitly instead of automatically whenever anyone touches
> one of these mutable property sheets.
>
> Thi
- - setting properties on a user will magically turn around and
persist
the change. This would be the first user folder I have seen where
this happens. Personally, I'm a bit uncomfortable with this magic.
setProperty on GRUFUser will persist the change as well.
I'm uncomfortable with this as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 16 Apr 2006, at 18:27, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
I hate to say it, but GRUF isn't an example for anything right or
good when it comes to user folders. And that opinion goes right up to
the top in Plone circles.
Previously Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> I hate to say it, but GRUF isn't an example for anything right or
> good when it comes to user folders. And that opinion goes right up to
> the top in Plone circles.
No argument there. But considering how popular GRUF is its behaviour is
a good measure of wha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 16 Apr 2006, at 17:46, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
- - IMutablePropertiesPlugin.getPropertiesForUser deviates from the
original contract in IPropertiesPlugin.getPropertiesForUser and
returns a property sheet object
Previously Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> - - IMutablePropertiesPlugin.getPropertiesForUser deviates from the
> original contract in IPropertiesPlugin.getPropertiesForUser and
> returns a property sheet object instead of a mapping. IMHO it should
> return a mapping.
It has to return an object so it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 16 Apr 2006, at 16:48, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Is there any reason not to merge the MutablePropertySheets from
PlonePAS
into PAS? The implementation is quite trivial:
http://dev.plone.org/collective/browser/PlonePAS/trunk/interfaces/
propert
14 matches
Mail list logo
