Florent Guillaume wrote at 2005-11-29 15:32 +0100:
>...
>I'm a bit peeved though at the lack of willingness from the few people that
>have reimplemented their version of _setObject/_delObject (which could be
>considered "private" APIs, seeing that they're prefixed with an underscore)
All methods necessary to implement your own "ObjectManager" have
the "_" at the start. There is no official API allowing
to add new objects to an ObjectManager...
> ...
>This is supposed to be open source, can't we be reactive to change in such
>situation?
Why must "_setObject/_delObject" grow a new parameter "suppress_events"?
Where is it used for?
Up to now, the methods called "manage_afterAdd/manage_beforeDelete"
indiscrimently -- without the need to suppress these calls
(the predecessors of events).
In the very few places where "manage_afterAdd/manage_beforeDelete"
should behave specially, a specialized fake object was used.
Can classes no longer control event creation (such that a
parameter to "_setObject/_delObject" must be used to prevent
normal (event generating behaviour).
>Are folks really going to ship their framework code with
>_setObject unmodified from the current version when they ship it for Five
>1.2 or Zope 2.9?
I am quite happy, when a single version of my "framework" works with
many Zope versions. I am even happier when nothing needs to be changed
for a new version (because it may take me quite a long time
before I/we accept a new Zope version and support it).
The following products installed here define their own
"_setObject":
* "LocalFS"
* "PluggableAuthService"
* several private products (for versioning, temporary instance
creation, "multi container")
--
Dieter
_______________________________________________
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
