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
Finally with some help from Stephan Richter giving us the
clue that this
__name__ and __parent__ information could only be lost if
is in play, we figured out what what we think is going on:
This is all fixed by subclassing Contained, but the catalog
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
that what is stored wouldn't know its location anymore, which
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
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 http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
Zope3-dev mailing list