Am 12.01.2007 um 10:13 schrieb Jens Vagelpohl:
That's a matter of taste. I like explicit, so I prefer the existing
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it myself) or perhaps an outdated methodology?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.
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests