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

[Martin Aspeli]

Tres Seaver wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> Kapil Thangavelu wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 06:16:23 -0400, yuppie <y.2007- at wcm-solutions.de>  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
>>>>> yuppie wrote:
>>>>> Kapil's also right when he says that utilities by principle are  
>>>>> context-less components.
>>>> By principle all Zope 3 code might depend on setSite to work as  
>>>> expected. We just don't pass that 'site context' explicitly to the  
>>>> component as in Zope 2.
>>>>
>>> contextual lookup is very a different notion, that context implementation  
>>> dependence. utilities don't have context implementation dependencies in  
>>> zope3, the majority of cmf tools do.
>> Just so we are clear, can anyone point to a good example of a 
>> not-trivial-to-change place where CMF tools have inherent dependencies 
>> on acquisition?
> 
> Security is inherently "placeful" in Zope2:  it requires being able to
> verify that the logged-in user is authenticated in a user folder which
> is in the "scope" of the protected resource.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, Zope3's model is *not* intrinsically superior:
>  it doesn't support the use cases of the Zope2 model at all.  Let's just
> forget the "Zoep3 is better" mantra and find a workable near-term
> solution here:  if we have to re-implement / tweak some Zope3 machinery
> to make it "play nice" in Zope2, then let us do so, rather than
> distorting both in a misguided effort at "Zope3 purity."
 >
>  - If that means continuing to use 'getToolByName' for traditional tools
>   which need Zope2 security, fine;  folks who implement new utilities
>   which don't need that compatibility can register them as pure
>   utilities.
> 
>  - If it's easier to hack the LSM stuff to automagically wrap those
>    returned  utilities which implement IAcquisitionWhatever, fine;  if
>    that means in turn that folks must use the Zope2 LSM version in
>    subsites, fine.

I guess the main worry is if we go down a route whereby we *always* need 
  a zope 2 version and a zope 3 version of some piece of code. Of 
course, this is often the case anyway, but that doesn't mean we have to 
make the situation worse. KSS, for example, had a set of components that 
worked well across both zopes, and now needs conditional imports for its 
base classes.

> This is not "rape" by any stretch of the imagination;  this is
> "adaptation" at its best.  Let's be pragmatic here, please.

The Hungarians have a colourful idea of language. :)

Martin