Godefroid Chapelle wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 10 Apr 2007, at 10:30, yuppie wrote:
c) improving five.lsm (Rocky)
AFAICS this is an other attempt to resolve the same issue:

We have to decide which way to go. I prefer c) if it works, b) otherwise.

Same here. c) first, then b). Strongly against a).

Before the sprint, I have spent more than one day exploring (c) Rocky's proposal and did not get to anything satisfactory. The zope.interface.adapter.AdapterRegistry would need to be acquisition-aware. IOW, we would once again pollute Z3.

Why isn't it sufficient to use a customized version of AdapterRegistry for five.lsm? If the direct lookup in the registry returns wrapped utilities, other site managers and registries don't have to be acquisition-aware. No?


Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org

See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests

Reply via email to