[Zope-Coders] Re: [Zope-dev] Speaking of 2.6...

[Shane Hathaway]

Mario Valente wrote:
>   Both me and Myroslav Opyr <myroslav@zope.net.ua> are quite
>  commited to do the proposed "Object Links/References". Although
>  from the emails we exchanged with you, I would've guessed that
>  it was one of the "controversial enough" to be a Vetted item :-)
> 
>   Anyways I'm commited to do it. I do agree with your argument about
>  link semantics but, at least for me, a link/reference is a link, and the
>  semantics are perfectly defined i.e its not a RedirectObject.
> 
>   As in Unix, a hard link has different semantics from a soft link. I'm
>  thinking of the "hard link" semantics. 

Object links and references might not be realistic for Zope 2, unless 
you can solve the ID problem.  The ID of an object is currently stored 
in two objects--the container and the object.  If they do not match, bad 
things will happen.  ZMI, getPhysicalPath(), restrictedTraverse(), etc. 
will get confused.

When you make a hard link or symlink, the ID then has to match in 
several places.  If you rename a link, does that change the name of the 
original object?  It shouldn't, but unless it renames the original 
object also, you're in trouble.

Maybe we could say that objects that are linked must never be renamed. 
But then we'd lose one of the main benefits of links.

I suggest it may be best to wait for Zope 3.

Shane