On Saturday 18 June 2005 13:36, Garrett Smith wrote:
> > For 3.2, we need to find a way to make this clearer. Either we need
> > to provide a more verbose description of what the name is for or
> > perhaps, as Stephan has suggested, for components that are always
> > looked up without names, we should not provide the option of entering
> > a name and, for others, we should require a name.
> IMO, the PAU pattern of not taking a name works well. The confusion
> above may be a hold-over from the time when PAU regs did accept names.
Right. In my opinion all nameless utilities are what services used to be. I
have not yet seen an exception to this rule. The terminology I introduced for
them in the new Tools UI (now called Site Management) is "Unique Utilities",
since they are unique to a given site.
CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student)
Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training
Zope3-users mailing list