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

[Alec Mitchell]

On 4/11/07, yuppie <y.2007- at wcm-solutions.de> wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
> Kapil Thangavelu wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:09:27 -0400, Jens Vagelpohl
> > <jens-G0EXMjp3EnnNLxjTenLetw at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >> On 10 Apr 2007, at 10:30, yuppie wrote:
> >>> Currently non-five.lsm site managers don't work in CMF, see this thread:
> >>>
> >>> http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2007-March/025817.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Proposed solutions:
> >>>
> >>> a) reverting most 'tools as utilities' changes (Kapil)
> >>> http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2007-March/025817.html
> >>>
> >>> b) supplementing five.lsm (Hanno)
> >>> http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2007-March/025822.html
> >>>
> >>> 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).
> >>
> >
> > are we juding by the amount of work to fix the 'fix'/problem or by the
> > nature of the solution itself.
>
> I'm judging by the solution itself *and* by the fact that we made a
> decision long ago and released a beta based on that decision. We should
> reverse that decision only if we are sure it was a mistake.

I feel very strongly that this decision was a mistake, and regret that
I didn't get involved in the initial discussions.  As a result, I'm
very much in favor of a.  Further, I agree with everything that
Philipp has written below.

A five.lsm which does its wrapping inside its internal storage might
be a reasonable halfway solution, though it misses one of the major
points, which is that there's no practical reason other than
aesthetics to deprecate getToolByName at this point.  This still seems
like we're creating a lot of developer pain with minimal benefit
(tools already allow for local customization by acquisition).  If we
were to go that route, I think it would be wise if five.lsm provided
an implementation that doesn't attempt any wrapping as well, so that
developers can use a "proper" component registry implementation which
doesn't unnecessarily alter its utilities on retrieval unless they
specifically request that it does (the version that does do wrapping
should probably be deprecated from the start though).

Alec