[Zope-dev] Re: You can always document...

[yuppie]

Hi Chris!


Chris Withers wrote:
> yuppie wrote:
>>> I believe the Hippocratic Oath should be followed in subjective cases 
>>> like this.  "First, do no harm."
>>
>> Cruft does harm. It discourages people who want to understand and 
>> improve Zope. And it encourages people to stick to bad coding habits.
> 
> As far as "methods" goes, I call bullshit on this. Simple documentation 
> of what "methods" is used for probably would have sufficed...

This is how 'methods' is documented in OFS.Application::

     # Look for an 'initialize' method in the product. If it does
     # not exist, then this is an old product that has never been
     # updated. In that case, we will analyze the product and
     # build up enough information to do initialization manually.
     [...]
     # Support old-style product metadata. Older products may
     # define attributes to name their permissions, meta_types,
     # constructors, etc.
     [followed by the code that interprets the 'methods' attribute]

So 'methods' is BBB code for constructors. Other use cases might work, 
but they were never officially supported. Note that using 'methods' was 
already 'old-style' 6 years ago.

>> Why do you want to have special support for monkey patching Folder? 
>> Which use cases justify to pollute the Folder API in that way?
> 
> This is Zope 2, namespace polution is _not_ something that's going to 
> get fixed...

There were many attempts to fix this and the pollution would be much 
worse without those attempts. 'methods' was replaced by 'registerClass' 
to give constructors their own namespace: manage_addProduct.


Cheers,

	Yuppie