[Zope-CMF] Re: tools, utilities, and getToolByName

[Martin Aspeli]

Rocky wrote:
> On Apr 19, 12:52 pm, Martin Aspeli <optil... at gmx.net> wrote:
>>  -1 to relying on five.localsitemanager, especially if it means other site
>> managers somewhere inside the CMF site will need to be five.lsm aware.
> 
> Not sure what relying on five.lsm means... because if we don't use
> five.lsm, then having sub-ISite's beneath a CMF site will break the
> site due to the fact that current Five doesn't produce __bases__'s
> properly.  This was the primary reason for doing five.lsm, to make
> sure sub-ISite's work.
> 
> In effect, having a cmf portal be an ISite but not having a working
> __bases__ actually does more harm than good.

So are we saying we need a bugfix/monkey patch to Five?

By "not using five.lsm" I meant "don't do the automatic acquisition 
wrapping".

I think I still don't quite understand why five.lsm breaks "normal" Zope 
3 site managers, but I was under the impression that if we kept on using 
such "normal" site managers ourselves, it should "just work". I didn't 
realise Five needed its own implementation.

Martin