Am 12.01.2007 um 10:13 schrieb Jens Vagelpohl:

That's a matter of taste. I like explicit, so I prefer the existing method.

Explicit is better than implicit but I don't see what's wrong with having an explicit list of fields through which to loop, as long as the call is the same as this reduces typos and makes things easier to manage. Of course, exposing all attributes by allowing __get__ to be the same as getattr can cause problems for objects that are not simply based on dictionaries.

I was initially confused that the context was the same as the instance of my content-type and didn't support this as I use this idiom quite frequently to reduce my typos. Is this too much of an edge case to warrant the extension in general (but I'm free to do it myself) or perhaps an outdated methodology?

I'm not sure what this paragraph means.

It was quite late...

In PythonScripts I quite often use
context.get('objectname') rather than context.objectname for anything programmatic. It seems to me that there is a case for making certain attributes of content-types available via get so that dispatching can be used where appropriate.

If I need to add attributes to portal users such as their full name, is it best to customise the member object for my site or to use a plugin?

All you need to do is to add the desired property to the list of properties in the member data tool, and then extend the preferences form and its handlers with your new property (untested off the top of my head).

Thanks. Works as expected.


Charlie Clark
Helmholtzstr. 20
D- 40215
Tel: +49-211-938-5360
GSM: +49-178-782-6226

Zope-CMF maillist  -

See for bug reports and feature requests

Reply via email to