Thanks Dieter!  You're quite right, that sounds like it would work--and it
is something I wouldn't have thought of, so good to have a reminder of
acquisition magic in somewhat different contexts

I've got a beta of the non-UI features of my replacement already, and since
I've invested some work in it and I think it would be a more graceful
solution in the end anyway (YMMV) I'm going to go ahead with it.  Still,
really much appreciated.  Planning to release my clunky early beta within
the week; I'd love to hear your suggestions on it when it comes out.

Thanks again.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dieter Maurer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Gary Poster writes:
>  > Hi.  My main project right now is actually to build a VHM replacement
>  > myself to solve some needs I had.....
>  > .....
>  > * I need the ability to store arbitrary properties for each virtual
>  > In particular, the correlary of my current work is to provide a
>  > CMFVirtualHost tool that stores a sub-portal title, sub-portal skin
>  > information, and other items.
>  > * I need the ability to have multiple domains point to the same folder,
>  > while ideally maintaining the arbitrary properties
> I expect these two requirements are already possible without
> any modification to VRM.
> Assume, your destination folder is "I" (for implementation)
> and you have configuation objects "C1", "C2", ... one
> for each of your virtual domains "D1", "D2", ...
> The configuration objects could be any object capable of holding
> the configuration information and inheriting from "Acquisition.Implicit"
> Then you rewrite your virtual domain URL for "Di" into
>      VirtualHostBase/Di/Ci/I/VirtualHostRoot
> Due to the magic of acquisition, your should get the configuration
> into your implementing "I".
> Dieter

Zope-Dev maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to