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

[Rob Miller]

Alec Mitchell wrote:
> 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.

i'll add yet another "me too" to this chorus.  removing getToolByName has 
become considerably more trouble than it's worth.  currently, i see basically 
two options being suggested:

- adding (and then living with) yet more code in Five, which changes the 
behaviour of clean, well established Z3 idioms in order to support Z2 
components which require acquisition.

- undeprecating an extremely widely used, intended-to-be-future-proof Z2 
idiom, which would allow us to interact more simply and predictably with 
existing Z3 utility lookup code

i guess it's pretty clear which one i support.  ;-)

-r