[Zope-CMF] Re: Delete trouble

[Philipp von Weitershausen]

On 27 Mar 2007, at 20:57 , Dieter Maurer wrote:
> As so often, we have completely different views on how things  
> should be:
>
>   When I have an "IObjectBeforeDeleteEvent" subscriber which
>   should update the unique ID tool, then it can assume that
>   there is indeed a unique ID tool. And if the assumption is
>   wrong, an exception should result.

What makes you think you can make that assumption? This is Zope 2 all  
over again, where things just have to be there. That won't help  
making things more flexible.

> We have this situation here: there should be (and is) a unique
> id tool but the local registrations have not been performed.

Nope, we're just not operating in a place where we can get to the  
tool. It's standard acquisition semantics.

> An exception is better than silently omit the update of the existing
> unique id tool.
> You could argue that the local id tool does not need to be updated
> as the complete site (including the tool) gets deleted.

Indeed.

> But would the effect be different, if I used:
>
>     plone_site.some_folder.manage_deleteObjects(....).
>
> Or in other words, is attribute lookup entailed in traversal?

No.

> If it is not (which I assume), then your "defensive programming"
> would hide inconsistencies in the unique id tool -- similar
> to a "defensive try: .... except: pass".

What kind of inconsistencies? We're deleting the thing anyway, what's  
the point to update it?