[Zope-CMF] Re: [dev] unresolved site manager related issues

[yuppie]

Hi!


Kapil Thangavelu wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:09:27 -0400, Jens Vagelpohl 
> <jens-G0EXMjp3EnnNLxjTenLetw at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> On 10 Apr 2007, at 10:30, yuppie wrote:
>>> Currently non-five.lsm site managers don't work in CMF, see this thread:
>>>
>>> http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2007-March/025817.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Proposed solutions:
>>>
>>> a) reverting most 'tools as utilities' changes (Kapil)
>>> http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2007-March/025817.html
>>>
>>> b) supplementing five.lsm (Hanno)
>>> http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2007-March/025822.html
>>>
>>> c) improving five.lsm (Rocky)
>>> AFAICS this is an other attempt to resolve the same issue:
>>> http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2007-March/025708.html
>>>
>>> We have to decide which way to go. I prefer c) if it works, b) 
>>> otherwise.
>>
>> Same here. c) first, then b). Strongly against a).
>>
> 
> are we juding by the amount of work to fix the 'fix'/problem or by the 
> nature of the solution itself.

I'm judging by the solution itself *and* by the fact that we made a 
decision long ago and released a beta based on that decision. We should 
reverse that decision only if we are sure it was a mistake.

> the reason why a) was proposed is that the current usage isn't about 
> adopting the zope3 api, its subverting its usage and meaning by 
> introducing context dependencies where there were none before. a utility 
> is context independent, the majority of cmf tools are not.

I still don't buy that context argument. Utilities and tools both are 
used in the 'context' of a site. The only difference is how the 
knowledge about the site is used: Just for lookups or also for 
acquisition wrapping.

> instead of 
> introducing implicitness into the zope3 apis that imo defeats the 
> purpose of using them in the first place, we should fix our tools so 
> they can be used with the zope3 api and are not contentspace/context 
> dependent, and till they are so continue to access them as we have been. 
> a clear migration path that adheres to this principle was outline in a).

I can see why you want to do it this way around, but I can't see why 
switching first to utility lookups and changing the implementation later 
is a mistake. I'm not aware of any problems that can't be resolved by 
improving the site managers / registries.


Cheers,

	Yuppie