[Zope-CMF] Re: [dev] five.localsitemanager: proposal

[yuppie]

Hi!


Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> yuppie wrote:
>> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>>> Previously yuppie wrote:
>>>> MembershipTool depends on acl_users
>>>>
>>>> MemberDataTool, RegistrationTool, DiscussionTool and
>>>> CachingPolicyManager depend on MembershipTool
> 
> From what I can see in the Plone tests it won't be possible in any sane
> way to let the user related tools to be utilities. At least for CMF 2.1
> I think an approach trying to distinguish between safe and unsafe
> methods is too risky and we should move those back to pure tools.

Ok. I'll revert the tools-as-utilities changes for these tools as well. 
Should be finished this evening.

>> So far I tried to decide which tool depends on self.REQUEST and which
>> not. Maybe we need a more fine grained approach:
>>
>> MembershipTool doesn't depend on all methods of acl_users, not all user
>> folder methods depend on self.REQUEST. IStandardUserFolder has not all
>> the methods, but an interface that adds _doAddUser(), getUserById()
>> and userFolderDelUsers() should be sufficient. Maybe that set of methods
>> specified by a user folder utility interface doesn't depend on
>> self.REQUEST.
>>
>> If that doesn't work, we can try the same with the MembershipTool: If
>> not all methods of IMembershipTool work without self.REQUEST, we still
>> can use a subset IMembershipUtility.
> 
> I would suggest we try this approach on the CMF trunk but revert to
> tools-only for those tools for CMF 2.1.

We can discuss the roadmap for converting tools to utilities later. At 
the moment I just want to make sure five.lsm can be tested extensively 
and declared 'ready for production'.


Cheers,

	Yuppie