Tres Seaver wrote:
> Rocky Burt wrote:
>> On Sat, 2007-06-01 at 16:32 +0100, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
>>> Hhm, I'm not sure what the best way is here. Personally I would like to
>>> get rid of as much of Acquisition as possible, but obviously we need to
>>> be careful here.
>> +10 here
> Fuggeddaboudit -- this is Zope2, and acquisition is still crucial (and
> will remain so for the foreseeable future).  Tools-qua-utilities *need*
> wrapping in order for Zope2's security machinery to operate.  If Five's
> "local utility" bits don't arrange to wrap their own registered
> utilities (not those gotten by "acquiring" from above), then we need to
> change them to do so.

Five doesn't do anything special for any utilities for Zope 2. It relies
completely on the Zope 3 implementation, which of course doesn't know
anything about Acquisition.

PhiliKON some time ago suggested that Five should wrap the utilities
eventually but nobody followed up on that idea. Personally I have no
clue how Acquisition and security are intermingled in Zope 2, so cannot
suggest any reasonable behavior here.

>>> In the end a utility is defined as something that does not need a
>>> context to do it's work. 
> You are confusing "context" here -- the utility doesn't need to have an
> "adapterish" context, but it *does* need to have "containment" context
> -- that is why it is "local" in the first place.

Ah yep, you are of course right. My main point was probably that it
shouldn't rely on the request (unless passed in explicitly as a method


Zope-CMF maillist  -

See for bug reports and feature requests

Reply via email to