Alec Mitchell wrote:
On 4/11/07, yuppie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

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:
>>> Proposed solutions:
>>> 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)
>>> otherwise.
>> 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.

I feel very strongly that this decision was a mistake, and regret that
I didn't get involved in the initial discussions.  As a result, I'm
very much in favor of a.

i'll add yet another "me too" to this chorus. removing getToolByName has become considerably more trouble than it's worth. currently, i see basically two options being suggested:

- adding (and then living with) yet more code in Five, which changes the behaviour of clean, well established Z3 idioms in order to support Z2 components which require acquisition.

- undeprecating an extremely widely used, intended-to-be-future-proof Z2 idiom, which would allow us to interact more simply and predictably with existing Z3 utility lookup code

i guess it's pretty clear which one i support.  ;-)


Zope-CMF maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

See for bug reports and feature requests

Reply via email to