Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2007-3-28 08:16 +0200:
...
What makes you think you can make that assumption? This is Zope 2 all
over again, where things just have to be there. That won't help
making things more flexible.
Hiding exceptions (or avoiding them at all costs) might be seen as
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Traceback (innermost last):
Module ZPublisher.Publish, line 119, in publish
Module ZPublisher.mapply, line 88, in mapply
Module ZPublisher.Publish, line 42, in call_object
Module OFS.ObjectManager, line 524, in manage_delObjects
On 27 Mar 2007, at 20:57 , Dieter Maurer wrote:
As so often, we have completely different views on how things
should be:
When I have an IObjectBeforeDeleteEvent subscriber which
should update the unique ID tool, then it can assume that
there is indeed a unique ID tool. And if the
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
*sigh* Chapter XYZ in my book explains the process :). Whenever you
traverse over a site, its site manager becomes the active component
registry. So if you haven't traversed over that site yet, the utilities
in that site won't be found.
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
*sigh* Chapter XYZ in my book explains the process :). Whenever you
traverse over a site, its site manager becomes the active component
registry. So if you haven't traversed over that site yet, the
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote at 2007-3-25 12:46 +0100:
...
I agree, except I think there could potentially be lots of places where
this could be happening. In the general case, it's probably safe for
that code to assume the utility is there, and treat it as an error if
it's not,
