[Zope-CMF] Re: Five's local sitemanager, CMF, etc

[Philipp von Weitershausen]

Rocky wrote:
> On Feb 23, 3:50 pm, Martin Aspeli <optil... at gmx.net> wrote:
>> yuppie wrote:
>>> Maybe I'm missing something. But wasn't a major goal of
>>> five.localsitemanager to return acquisition wrapped tools?
>> That was my understanding, too. I thought this would just mean
>> aq_base'ing the utility and aq-wrapping it back into the context (the
>> portal root). Without this, we start requiring users of the interface to
>> know when aq wrapping is needed and do it explicitly with __of__() which
>> I think we agreed was unacceptably detailed and ugly. :)
> 
> Alright, I've gone ahead and put code in place for this (albeit a bit
> naively) with r72810.  The next question is whether we should be doing
> the same with adapters and subscribers as well (even though this
> doesn't affect the whole tools-getting-acquired-properly issue).

One more thing: This acquisition wrapping should clearly be marked (with 
comments) as something that's done to for BBB because some tools happen 
to want acquisition. I think in the future, it should be discouraged to 
expect acquisition in CMF tools.

To get to the portal root / CMF site, I suggest a pattern that is 
sometimes used in Zope3: We register the CMF site object as a utility 
providing ICMFSite (or whatever). Then whichever code that's executed 
below the portal (and that includes CMF tools) can do 
getUtility(ICMFSite) to get to the site.


Adapters and subscription adapters should not be acquisition wrapped.


-- 
http://worldcookery.com -- Professional Zope documentation and training
Next Zope 3 training at Camp5: http://trizpug.org/boot-camp/camp5