Hi Garrett From: Garrett Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 12:01 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: email@example.com > Subject: RE: [Zope3-dev] Utility Registration was:RE: > [Zope3-Users] pluggableauthentication utility [...] > > I guess I'm not aware of anything that has anywhere near the > configuration complexity of the PAU.
Perhaps ;-) > > - I dont' like to have more then one implementation if not > > absolutly needed only for configuration reason. > > I don't see this as a configuration issue. For most applications, the > PAU is too flexible/powerful and I think this is source of lots of > usability questions. A SimplePAU could be implemented using adaptation > so that a new PAU type wouldn't be necessary. Ok, that's right. But I don't like to support two concepts for PAU. I think the users get confused again. > > - The activation part on the registration process is still > > the same. The most problem is that we implement components > > where using the utility and lookup this utilities by a special > > name or unnamed. But nobody tells you what name should be used > > during registration. > > I think the delineation is named vs. unnamed. I agree with Stephan and > Jim that utilities that are used without names should not ask > for names > -- those that use names should require them. I would add (this has > probably already been added, don't recall) a utility should have some > way of communicating that interface or interfaces that it could be > registered for. E.g. it doesn't make much sense to register > the PAU for > IAnnotations. Yup > But to reiterate -- the PAU registration does *not* accept a > name value > and does *not* let the user register for anything other than > IAuthentication. I haven't heard anyone complain about the > registration > issues of PAU since that change. > > > I still think a policy (somthing like a add wizard) whould solve > > the problem. Developers can develope the registration process in > > a pytho class and register tehm as a "utilityPolicy". Then > > administrators or scripters can add the utility witha simple klick > > on a "add predefined utility" button. > > This sounds like a lot of work for the developer. > > > On nice sideeffect whould be, > > You could also add a policy "Add all utility I need for a site". > > Or even call this policy during makeSite on your special > > implementation of IPossibleSite. > > I do like this idea. This is in the spirit of the server bootstrap > module that ensures that a particular set of utilties are > available and > configured on startup. > > I definitely think something likethis is needed for the "Make a Site" > action. > > So, perhaps something like this: > > <siteconfig > name="foo.bar.mysite" > title="My Site" > description="Create my cool new site." > configurator=".configMySite" /> > > This would setup a menu and register an adapter to something like > ISiteConfig that would be used to configure a newly created site. Perhaps we can solve the PAU problem with a IFactory called CreateSimplePAU and this factory can add and configure the PAU. Can we use a factory class for creating utilities? Regards Roger Ineichen > > -- Garrett > _______________________________________________ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3firstname.lastname@example.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com