On 19 September 2011 14:56, yuppie <y.2...@wcm-solutions.de> wrote: > Hi! > > > Hanno Schlichting wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 11:57 AM, yuppie<y.2011-E2EsyBC0hj3+aS/ > vkh9...@public.gmane.org> wrote: > >> Currently CMF trunk contains some hacks to work around the catalog brain > >> issues. But I hope there is a better solution. Maybe the ICatalogBrain > >> methods getURL, _unrestrictedGetObject and getObject should have a > >> REQUEST argument that is used instead of self.REQUEST? > >> > >> Any kind of feedback and help is welcome. > > > > Mmh, why don't we just use zope.globalrequest in ZCatalog directly? > > And create a new ZCatalog 2.14 release series with this. Then we don't > > have to wait for Zope 4.0 to include it. > > Using an explicit argument is always cleaner than using > zope.globalrequest. And getObject() already has a (currently unused) > REQUEST argument. And we might be able to provide a migration path for > the API change: If we don't use registerToolInterface, we don't have to > change getObject/getURL calls in places where we still use getToolByName. > > But with zope.globalrequest we can avoid modifying the API. So if it is > fine to smuggle a zope.globalrequest dependency in Zope 2.13, that might > be the better solution. Or did you mean to use ZCatalog 2.14 only in CMF? > > getURL() is an extremely common operation, and is often called in TALES expressions.
-100 on making it take a mandatory request parameter when there are other solutions available. Martin
_______________________________________________ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests