Re: [Zope-CMF] [dev] Should portal_setup be registered as utility?
Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > yuppie wrote: >> Hi Dieter! >> >> >> Dieter Maurer wrote: >>> Thus, why do local utilities registered by Five (i.e. these utilities are >>> for Zope2 use) do not provide access to the request in the normal >>> Zope2 way? >> >> That's what we tried first. But it turned out that Zope 3's site manager >> code caches the utilities across request boundaries. AFAICT it would >> have been necessary to rewrite the registry code completely to make sure >> we return always the right request. >> >>> If they would, local utilities were much nearer to tools and >>> the transition would be facilitated. >> >> They would be nearer to tools, but also more distant from zope 3 >> utilities. I doubt that would really be a win. > > This won't solve this particular problem, but it may be worth looking at > how other frameworks work. Pylons, for example, has the request > available as "global" variable - actually a thread-local. Zope could set > the request as a thread local in the same way that it sets the site > manager (so you can get it via getSite()). Calling getRequest() would in > many ways be cleaner than doing self.context.REQUEST or whatever, and > would work regardless of whether the context was acquisition wrapped. +100 Ross ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] [dev] Should portal_setup be registered as utility?
Martin Aspeli wrote at 2008-11-18 16:25 +: > ... >This won't solve this particular problem, but it may be worth looking at >how other frameworks work. Pylons, for example, has the request >available as "global" variable - actually a thread-local. Zope could set >the request as a thread local in the same way that it sets the site >manager (so you can get it via getSite()). Calling getRequest() would in >many ways be cleaner than doing self.context.REQUEST or whatever, and >would work regardless of whether the context was acquisition wrapped. That, too, would be a solution to access the often needed request -- just not the typical Zope2 one: i.e. lots of rewrites would be necessary. -- Dieter ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] [dev] Should portal_setup be registered as utility?
yuppie wrote at 2008-11-18 12:00 +0100: >Dieter Maurer wrote: >> Thus, why do local utilities registered by Five (i.e. these utilities are >> for Zope2 use) do not provide access to the request in the normal >> Zope2 way? > >That's what we tried first. But it turned out that Zope 3's site manager >code caches the utilities across request boundaries. AFAICT it would >have been necessary to rewrite the registry code completely to make sure >we return always the right request. > >> If they would, local utilities were much nearer to tools and >> the transition would be facilitated. > >They would be nearer to tools, but also more distant from zope 3 >utilities. I doubt that would really be a win. Then, maybe, Zope 3 utilities are inadequate at many places in to Zope 2 world: e.g. any tool that uses TALES expressions may want to access the (current, of course) request -- especially when they are destined for user interaction (as actions are). In view of this, one can understand that Plone has problems with the "setup_tool" utility registration. -- Dieter ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] CMF Tests: 6 OK
Summary of messages to the cmf-tests list. Period Tue Nov 18 12:00:00 2008 UTC to Wed Nov 19 12:00:00 2008 UTC. There were 6 messages: 6 from CMF Tests. Tests passed OK --- Subject: OK : CMF-2.1 Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.5 : Linux From: CMF Tests Date: Tue Nov 18 20:59:30 EST 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/cmf-tests/2008-November/010405.html Subject: OK : CMF-2.1 Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.5 : Linux From: CMF Tests Date: Tue Nov 18 21:01:00 EST 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/cmf-tests/2008-November/010406.html Subject: OK : CMF-trunk Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.5 : Linux From: CMF Tests Date: Tue Nov 18 21:02:30 EST 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/cmf-tests/2008-November/010407.html Subject: OK : CMF-trunk Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.5 : Linux From: CMF Tests Date: Tue Nov 18 21:04:00 EST 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/cmf-tests/2008-November/010408.html Subject: OK : CMF-trunk Zope-trunk Python-2.4.5 : Linux From: CMF Tests Date: Tue Nov 18 21:05:30 EST 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/cmf-tests/2008-November/010409.html Subject: OK : CMF-trunk Zope-trunk Python-2.5.2 : Linux From: CMF Tests Date: Tue Nov 18 21:07:00 EST 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/cmf-tests/2008-November/010410.html ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
