[Zope-CMF] [dev] tools as utilities

[yuppie]

Hi Laurence!


Laurence Rowe wrote:
> On 5 September 2012 11:48, yuppie <y.2012-E2EsyBC0hj3+aS/vkh9bjw at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>>> 2.) Site root lookup: =====================
>>>>>
>>>>> In several tools we still assume aq_parent(aq_inner(self)) is the
>>>>> portal. Or other code uses the tool as context object, expecting root
>>>>>   and request in its acquisition chain.
>>>>>
>>>>> These should be identified and replaced by
>>>>> getUtility(IURLTool).getPortalObject() or other suitable code.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe we could add a convenience API for that?
>>>
>>>
>>> getToolByName can be used instead as it does the lookups.
>>
>>
>> getToolByName is no option because it is part of the machinery that should
>> become obsolete.
>>
>> getUtility(IURLTool).getPortalObject() might be overkill because it adds the
>> request to the context. All the code that needs the request should be fixed
>> already. Using queryUtility(ISiteRoot) should be sufficient.
>>
>> But AFAICS the only way to find all the places where this needs to be fixed
>> is to set up a site with tools that are not stored in the site root.
>
> How about introducing a new getPortal() function? It could simply use
> getSite() then walk back down the acquisition chain until finding an
> object that directlyProvides ISiteRoot. In Plone KSS can introduce
> another 'component site' between its view and the portal itself.

Not sure why the discussion takes this direction. My point was that 
several CMF tools/utilities might not work correctly if the site root is 
not their parent. The difficult part is not to look up the site root. 
The difficult part is to figure out where a lookup is required.

I don't think relying on getSite() is a good idea. As you mention it 
doesn't always return the portal object. And the fact it is stored with 
the request in its context is just an accidental side effect. What would 
be the advantage compared to using getUtility(ISiteRoot)?


Cheers,

	Yuppie