Am Dienstag, 19. Dezember 2006 13:03 schrieb Christian Theune:
> Florian Lindner wrote:
> > That's something I had mentioned in my posting too. It has advantage that
> > the feeds could decide if they want to be called or not, whereas by
> > the "utility-way" they would always be called.
> Considering your hesitation towards the component architecture, here's
> some more input:
I have no hesitations towards the component architecture. If I had I would not
use Zope3. ;-)
> Nowadays, registering a (persistent) object as a utility expresses
> basically the same functionality. If it wants to be called, you can
> register it as a utility for an interface (and maybe a name), if you
> don't want to, you don't (or you unregister it).
> What you automatically get is:
> - you don't have to write your own registry code (again),
> - the CA is optimized to do this kind of lookups
Ok, these are two strong points.
> The distinction between software and content space was pretty much
> removed now. Even content objects are software, or not?
Ehh, got me...
Ok, I'm convinced, I'll probably do it this way.
Zope3-users mailing list