Rocky wrote:
On Apr 19, 12:52 pm, Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 -1 to relying on five.localsitemanager, especially if it means other site
managers somewhere inside the CMF site will need to be five.lsm aware.


Not sure what relying on five.lsm means... because if we don't use
five.lsm, then having sub-ISite's beneath a CMF site will break the
site due to the fact that current Five doesn't produce __bases__'s
properly.  This was the primary reason for doing five.lsm, to make
sure sub-ISite's work.

In effect, having a cmf portal be an ISite but not having a working
__bases__ actually does more harm than good.

So are we saying we need a bugfix/monkey patch to Five?

By "not using five.lsm" I meant "don't do the automatic acquisition wrapping".

I think I still don't quite understand why five.lsm breaks "normal" Zope 3 site managers, but I was under the impression that if we kept on using such "normal" site managers ourselves, it should "just work". I didn't realise Five needed its own implementation.

Martin

_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

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

Reply via email to