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
>> On 10 Apr 2007, at 10:30, yuppie wrote:
>>> Currently non-five.lsm site managers don't work in CMF, see this
>>> 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)
>> 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 http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests