Previously Tres Seaver wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
> > Kapil Thangavelu wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 06:16:23 -0400, yuppie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Hi!
> >>> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> >>>> yuppie wrote:
> >>>> Kapil's also right when he says that utilities by principle are
> >>>> context-less components.
> >>> By principle all Zope 3 code might depend on setSite to work as
> >>> expected. We just don't pass that 'site context' explicitly to the
> >>> component as in Zope 2.
> >> contextual lookup is very a different notion, that context implementation
> >> dependence. utilities don't have context implementation dependencies in
> >> zope3, the majority of cmf tools do.
> > Just so we are clear, can anyone point to a good example of a
> > not-trivial-to-change place where CMF tools have inherent dependencies
> > on acquisition?
> Security is inherently "placeful" in Zope2: it requires being able to
> verify that the logged-in user is authenticated in a user folder which
> is in the "scope" of the protected resource.
> As far as I'm concerned, Zope3's model is *not* intrinsically superior:
> it doesn't support the use cases of the Zope2 model at all. Let's just
> forget the "Zoep3 is better" mantra and find a workable near-term
> solution here: if we have to re-implement / tweak some Zope3 machinery
> to make it "play nice" in Zope2, then let us do so, rather than
> distorting both in a misguided effort at "Zope3 purity."
> - If that means continuing to use 'getToolByName' for traditional tools
> which need Zope2 security, fine; folks who implement new utilities
> which don't need that compatibility can register them as pure
> - If it's easier to hack the LSM stuff to automagically wrap those
> returned utilities which implement IAcquisitionWhatever, fine; if
> that means in turn that folks must use the Zope2 LSM version in
> subsites, fine.
My current preference would be to keep using getToolByName while we
rewrite the tools to work as utilities. Once a tool works as a utility
which does not need to be acquisition-wrapper we can deprecate use of
getToolByName for just that utility.
I have a suspicion that this will be easy for most utilities. We can
put that framework in place for CMF 2.1 and start refactoring the tools
into utilities on CMF trunk.
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> It is simple to make things.
http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple.
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests