Roger Ineichen wrote:
Hi Martijn and Jim

Behalf Of Martijn Faassen

Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 2:22 PM
To: zope3-dev (E-mail)
Subject: [Zope3-dev] interaction between LocationProxy and IIntId utility

Hi there,


Finally with some help from Stephan Richter giving us the clue that this __name__ and __parent__ information could only be lost if LocationProxy is in play, we figured out what what we think is going on:


This is all fixed by subclassing Contained, but the catalog not working reliably for LocationProxy wrapped objects sounds scary. You could do something with the IntId utility automatically un-location-proxy-wrapping the objects if necessary, but that would mean that what is stored wouldn't know its location anymore, which would also be bad.

We have had similar discussion about this. Dominik added earlier
a ITransientLocation (I guess) for such a usecase. Jim suggest to remove this part. But I still think it's important to know if you have a real ILocation or a transient ILocation which you get with LocationProxy.

This was a totally different situation.  In your case, you had
location objects that you didn't need to assign locations too.
There was a bug in the intid utility that made you jump through
hoops when it was simpler to just fix the bug.

It whould be nice to have a ITransientLocation(Interface)
and a ILocation(ITransientLocation).

Persistent location are only supported by ILocation and not by

What do you think?

I think it is unnecessary.  Persistency and location are


Jim Fulton           mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]       Python Powered!
CTO                  (540) 361-1714  
Zope Corporation
Zope3-dev mailing list

Reply via email to