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

[Stephan Richter]

At 03:43 PM 4/9/2002 -0400, Shane Hathaway wrote:
>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.
>



>... or even better help integrating a Symlink in Zope 3. :-)

--
Stephan Richter
CBU - Physics and Chemistry Student
Web2k - Web Design/Development & Technical Project Management