For what its worth I would follow the current zope object manager
semantics.
Rgds
T
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Chris Rossi wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Tim Hoffman wrote:
>
>> I would be concerned if you tried to __setitem__ a new page to replace the
>> existing folde
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Tim Hoffman wrote:
> I would be concerned if you tried to __setitem__ a new page to replace the
> existing folder of the same name
> thus blowing away a whole heap of subfolders and documents in the process.
>
> Very bad ;-(
>
> I would tend to think that respons
On 6/17/10 16:36 , Charlie Clark wrote:
> Am 17.06.2010, 16:08 Uhr, schrieb Tim Hoffman:
>
>> I would be concerned if you tried to __setitem__ a new page to replace
>> the
>> existing folder of the same name
>> thus blowing away a whole heap of subfolders and documents in the
>> process.
>
> Agreed
Am 17.06.2010, 16:08 Uhr, schrieb Tim Hoffman :
> I would be concerned if you tried to __setitem__ a new page to replace
> the
> existing folder of the same name
> thus blowing away a whole heap of subfolders and documents in the
> process.
Agreed but "mv" will let you do this but there are t
I would be concerned if you tried to __setitem__ a new page to replace the
existing folder of the same name
thus blowing away a whole heap of subfolders and documents in the process.
Very bad ;-(
T
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Malthe Borch wrote:
> On 17 June 2010 16:08, Charlie Clark
> w
On 17 June 2010 16:08, Charlie Clark wrote:
> This is standard behaviour for folders (the not accepting duplicates). I
> think changing it would be against user expectations.
My file system accepts duplicates (meaning replacement). I don't need
to remove the file first.
\malthe
_
Hiya,
those of you who can pry your eyes from their television sets might like
to know that I'll be giving a presentation of BFG followed by a discussion
to the DZUG Rheinland tomorrow at the offices of "Coworking Cologne",
Deutz-Mülheimerstrasse 129 in Cologne from 19:00.
Charlie
___
Am 17.06.2010, 11:28 Uhr, schrieb Wichert Akkerman :
> I noticed something odd in repoze.folder: __setitem__ does not allow you
> to replace an existing item. This is a result from __setitem__ being an
> alias for add(). Is that a deliberate design decision? If not I'ld like
> to change it to allo
On Thu, 2010-06-17 at 14:57 +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> On 6/17/10 14:53 , Chris McDonough wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-06-17 at 11:28 +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> >> I noticed something odd in repoze.folder: __setitem__ does not allow you
> >> to replace an existing item. This is a result from
On 6/17/10 14:53 , Chris McDonough wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-06-17 at 11:28 +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> I noticed something odd in repoze.folder: __setitem__ does not allow you
>> to replace an existing item. This is a result from __setitem__ being an
>> alias for add(). Is that a deliberate desi
On Thu, 2010-06-17 at 11:28 +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> I noticed something odd in repoze.folder: __setitem__ does not allow you
> to replace an existing item. This is a result from __setitem__ being an
> alias for add(). Is that a deliberate design decision? If not I'ld like
> to change it
I noticed something odd in repoze.folder: __setitem__ does not allow you
to replace an existing item. This is a result from __setitem__ being an
alias for add(). Is that a deliberate design decision? If not I'ld like
to change it to allow replacing items.
Wichert.
__
12 matches
Mail list logo
