Kapil Thangavelu wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:09:27 -0400, Jens Vagelpohl
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10 Apr 2007, at 10:30, yuppie wrote:
Currently non-five.lsm site managers don't work in CMF, see this thread:
a) reverting most 'tools as utilities' changes (Kapil)
b) supplementing five.lsm (Hanno)
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)
Same here. c) first, then b). Strongly against a).
are we juding by the amount of work to fix the 'fix'/problem or by the
nature of the solution itself.
I'm judging by the solution itself *and* by the fact that we made a
decision long ago and released a beta based on that decision. We should
reverse that decision only if we are sure it was a mistake.
the reason why a) was proposed is that the current usage isn't about
adopting the zope3 api, its subverting its usage and meaning by
introducing context dependencies where there were none before. a utility
is context independent, the majority of cmf tools are not.
I still don't buy that context argument. Utilities and tools both are
used in the 'context' of a site. The only difference is how the
knowledge about the site is used: Just for lookups or also for
introducing implicitness into the zope3 apis that imo defeats the
purpose of using them in the first place, we should fix our tools so
they can be used with the zope3 api and are not contentspace/context
dependent, and till they are so continue to access them as we have been.
a clear migration path that adheres to this principle was outline in a).
I can see why you want to do it this way around, but I can't see why
switching first to utility lookups and changing the implementation later
is a mistake. I'm not aware of any problems that can't be resolved by
improving the site managers / registries.
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests