Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
(Note that in my original reply to ChrisW, I tried to be pragmatic. Of course, if ChrisW has the resources to go into this refactoring, by all means, let's do it).

No resources, sorry :-(
Just a desire to see this "done right" :-S

The pragmatic approach is just to make like Sidnei and have a zodb with only one root object in it...

There are two parts of your question. Making it simpler to plug in a different application root, and dealing with ZConfig.

This is true... while I'd love to have config have nothing to do with the problem at hand, I guess, as you point out, it's currently woken in. I guess a start would be to make it simpler to *not* use ZConfig but use a.n.other configuration method. I have memories of Jim having a proposal about this?

In order to implement a simpler security mechanism for grok, we had to re-implement every single publication (though of course subclassing was still possible, but we had to create a new variant of every publication class). That shouldn't be necessary.

Yeah, I'm guessing there's a few places where:

-getting the root object
-setting up the component achitecture
-setting up the servers
-setting up the security policy

...all run into one and maybe now's the time to burst them open?



Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
Zope3-dev mailing list

Reply via email to