+1 The copy_of_copy_of... stuff has always bugged me but I confess I never really looked at the code. I don't foresee any compatibility problems (any code that relies on the fact that a copy of 'copy_of_x' is named 'copy_of_copy_of_x' surely deserves to die). Please post this in the Zope collector so that it doesn't get lost. Florent In article <200411191949.33082.alex@nexedi.com> you write:
Hello,
While I was reading the _get_id function, I felt it was really strange :
#### def _get_id(self, id): # Allow containers to override the generation of # object copy id by attempting to call its _get_id # method, if it exists. n=0 if (len(id) > 8) and (id[8:]=='copy_of_'): n=1 orig_id=id while 1: if self._getOb(id, None) is None: return id id='copy%s_of_%s' % (n and n+1 or '', orig_id) n=n+1 ####
currently, when copying and pasting an object, 'copy[0-9]*_of_' will be prepended to the id (if the id is already in use in the current folder). Thus, copying 'x' will create 'copy_of_x', 'copy2_of_x', etc. and copying 'copy_of_x' will create 'copy_of_copy_of_x', 'copy2_of_copy_of_x', etc.
What I don't get, is what the two lines between 'n=0' and 'orig_id=id' are supposed to do. What they do is this : if an object id is 16 chars long, and it ends with 'copy_of_' (like 'XXXXXXXXcopy_of_'), its first copy will be called 'copy2_of_XXXXXXXXcopy_of_' instead of 'copy_of_XXXXXXXXcopy_of_'...
What I think the author intended to do, is that, when you copy an object called 'copy_of_x', the copy will be named 'copy2_of_x' instead of 'copy_of_copy_of_x'.
Thus, here's a function that does the job :
#### import re copy_re=re.compile('^copy[0-9]*_of_')
def _get_id(self, id): # Allow containers to override the generation of # object copy id by attempting to call its _get_id # method, if it exists. copy_match=self.copy_re.match(id) if (copy_match) and (copy_match.end() < len(id)): n=1 orig_id=self.copy_re.sub('', id) else: n=0 orig_id=id while 1: if self._getOb(id, None) is None: return id id='copy%s_of_%s' % (n and n+1 or '', orig_id) n=n+1 ####
Then, I don't know what is the preferred naming for new objects, but I fear that 'copy_of_copy_of_copy_of_copy_of_copy_of_copy_of_object' will quickly be too long, if objects are copied by an automated process that doesn't show the Ids to the user or don't allow their modification.
What are your feelings about this ?
Regards, Alexandre Boeglin _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
-- Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France) CTO, Director of R&D +33 1 40 33 71 59 http://nuxeo.com fg@nuxeo.com