mike wrote:
I also think so, Jephte. But I thought 'for rack ...' was just a shorter form of
if len( rackList) > 0) : return rackList[0].__of__( self).getItem( key) else : return None The intended behavior (at least in zpatterns-0.3) was to get an item from one of the racks. This is why I think this is a bug. It changes the behavior of zpatterns-0.3 because it returns the value from the first rack, and ignore the others. I wonder then of what use is the other racks... (or is this intended? I don't think so) If a rack returns None, then we assume the rack is not responsible for storage of that element, and go on with the next rack in the list
Better you, Phillip, replace it with one of more clear forms - Jephte's or mine.
By the way, I do not like this Rack list at all. Racks and Specialists are both DataManagers with compatible interfaces (getItem, newItem). IMHO, Specialists should have list of DataManagers. This make much sense in context of combining Specialists - ZSession and ClientManager, for example. It is not sufficient just to tune ZSession using ClientManager's rack and ZClass, because in this case we are losing the ClientManager's aspect in sessions. Of course, one always can create delegating rack (and even rack-to-specialist bridge), but what do this for if simple replacing rackList with dataManagerList will solve all such problems? I believe RackMountable/Racks/Specialist are not the same as DataSkin/DataManagers (in the spirit at least) They are used for different things. Or it is kept for compatibilty with old applications (at least, LoginManager use the Specialist/Rack paradigm)
(Oh Gott, help mine improvink mie English :-) itoo :-)
regards, jephte clain jclain@univ-reunion.fr