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

[Martin Aspeli]

Rob Miller wrote:

> 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.  ;-)

For the record, my personal preference was to *not* deprecate 
getToolByName (yet), but to allow the use of getUtility and to have 
getToolByName use getUtility internally. This would encourage a more 
consistent API (as we develop new "proper" utilities) and eventually 
we'd be able to move tools out of content space, with getToolByName 
providing a (perhaps eventually deprecated) backwards compatible alias 
for older tools that graduated to utilities.

When we first discussed this, no-one had thought about the acquisition 
dependency, I think. If it were so that no tools really dependent on 
acquiring things to function, I think that the above would have been a 
viable and forward-looking solution. It may yet be, but it seems the 
debate at this point is, "can we make utilities be 
acquisition-independent" and if not, do we go for a stopgap measure that 
may cause more problems than it solves, or do we need to wait.

Also, having used the new API (import interface, use getUtility) I much 
prefer it to getToolByName. But that's just a personal preference. :)

Martin