"Chris McDonough" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> I think the idiom here will be:
>
>
>
>
>
> > But I don't see how to do that, because if I
> > stick a dtml-with, for instance, into generic header code
> > (included, for example, by standard-html-header, then this
> > with statement is req
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:48:53 -0800 (PST)
Bob Sidebotham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Somebody wrote:
> > > Of course, the best solution would be for the 'magic'
> lookup to be
> > > optional...
>
> Alright, I've not a zope master, but isn't this already
> provided
> generically with:
>
>
--- Chris McDonough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I sympathize with the need to convert all your scripts over to use
> sessioning from hidden form-field encoding and the like... I'd really
> appreciate some input as to what kinds of problems you're trying to
> solve with sessioning.
I don't have a
--- Somebody wrote:
> > Of course, the best solution would be for the 'magic' lookup to be
> > optional...
Alright, I've not a zope master, but isn't this already provided
generically with:
All these arguments leave me a little confused: As a newbie, I read the
zope book, and it tells
Chris McDonough writes:
> So the question becomes: do we want DTML namespace lookup magic or no DTML
> namespace lookup magic for names that we attempt to look up in a session
> data object?
Maybe, we do not want the magic automatically but have
a simple way to call for it, when we like.
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Withers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Chris McDonough" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Dieter Maurer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Bob Sidebotham"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursd
Chris McDonough wrote:
>
> So the question becomes: do we want DTML namespace lookup magic or no DTML
> namespace lookup magic for names that we attempt to look up in a session
> data object? I don't know the answer. I'm so sick of magic at this point
> that I'm apt to vote "no", but if it affo
;Bob Sidebotham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Zope] Core Session Tracking kudos & namespaces
> Chris McDonough writes:
> >
> > Currently, nothing would be acquired, and the call will
fa
Chris McDonough writes:
>
> Currently, nothing would be acquired, and the call will fail
> inside of a "with sessiondatamanager" even if we did have a __getattr__
> interface to session data objects
Are you sure?
As I understand it, at least a
would make available all session
pp.
Thanks much for all the input!
- C
- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Sidebotham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Chris McDonough" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 11:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Zope] Core Session Tracking ku
And as I've just figured out by trying to convert some stuff to
sessions, a not unconsequential result of allowing session variables to
be acquired (if only for read purposes), is that existing code is
easier to adapt. I might now call a script without burying form
variables or parameters in the U
The advantage of the last form (below), is that you can use
acquisition, and don't need to know whether the variable came from the
session or from elsewhere. If you *really* want it to come from the
session only, you can always add the "only" tag to the dtml-with call.
In conjunction with this, i
> 1. The Core Session Tracking looks like it will be really helpful. I AM
> BLOWN AWAY BY THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENTATION. Congratulations for
> making really readable, easy to use installation and use instructions.
> Part of the reason I'm so blown away, of course, is that the quality of
> this
1. The Core Session Tracking looks like it will be really helpful. I AM
BLOWN AWAY BY THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENTATION. Congratulations for
making really readable, easy to use installation and use instructions.
Part of the reason I'm so blown away, of course, is that the quality of
this documentat
14 matches
Mail list logo