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

[yuppie]

Godefroid Chapelle wrote:
> Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>> On 10 Apr 2007, at 10:30, yuppie wrote:
>>> c) improving five.lsm (Rocky)
>>> AFAICS this is an other attempt to resolve the same issue:
>>> http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2007-March/025708.html
>>>
>>> We have to decide which way to go. I prefer c) if it works,  b) 
>>> otherwise.
>>
>> Same here. c) first, then b). Strongly against a).
> 
> Before the sprint, I have spent more than one day exploring (c) Rocky's 
> proposal  and did not get to anything satisfactory. The 
> zope.interface.adapter.AdapterRegistry would need to be 
> acquisition-aware. IOW, we would once again pollute Z3.

Why isn't it sufficient to use a customized version of AdapterRegistry 
for five.lsm? If the direct lookup in the registry returns wrapped 
utilities, other site managers and registries don't have to be 
acquisition-aware. No?

Yuppie