-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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.

Subsites are a pretty rare case, actually, and have *no* BBB
considerations, as they weren't really possible before.  I wouldn't say
we should hold up anything on that account, if no easy fix is available.


Tres.
- --
===================================================================
Tres Seaver          +1 540-429-0999          [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Palladion Software   "Excellence by Design"    http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGK4HG+gerLs4ltQ4RAhayAJ9EtO/0cTp4uh3tAETbDDU6Oz1h9QCdHCwy
s8uPZsACorCi7EkUTegyq3k=
=TwDQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
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