Hi Tres!

Tres Seaver wrote:
yuppie wrote:

Or do you prefer to keep things as they are over a less clean switch to utilities?

Yes.  I'd rather get 2.1 out, even with tools-which-can't-be-utilitiies
as they are, then delay.

I'm not just talking about CMF 2.1. I'm fine if the result of this discussion is a roadmap that starts with CMF 2.2. But if there is no realistic roadmap at all we might better revert all the tools-as-utilities changes. The few utilities we have right now are not worth the trouble. Starting the migration makes only sense if we have a plan to finish it.

Note that this problem is basically due to the desire to cache the
aq_chain for utilities:  if we punt on that, we can then defer this
whole issue.

Maybe that's your reason why you didn't argue against the proposal. I consider the possibility to cache utilities just a side effect of removing the REQUEST from the wrappers.

This is not about making the implementation easier. This is about defining what utilities are. If they provide self.REQUEST they become a utility-view monster that has not much in common with Zope 3 utilities. Reducing Zope 2 magic to a minimum if we use Zope 3 technology is a good thing - even if that forces us to be more explicit about required REQUEST arguments.



Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org

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

Reply via email to