Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: getToolByName depreciation, getUtility, and five.lsm

2007-04-03 Thread Alec Mitchell
On 4/3/07, yuppie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! Alec Mitchell wrote: On 4/1/07, yuppie y.2007--E2EsyBC0hj3+aS/[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: You're suggesting to introduce yet another package that's destined to go a way at some point, while the same

[Zope-CMF] Re: getToolByName depreciation, getUtility, and five.lsm

2007-04-03 Thread yuppie
Hi! Alec Mitchell wrote: On 4/3/07, yuppie y.2007--E2EsyBC0hj3+aS/[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AFAICS all CMF tool interfaces are valid utility interfaces. The fact they are currently implemented as content space tools is just an implementation detail. Using the utility I don't care how it is

Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: getToolByName depreciation, getUtility, and five.lsm

2007-04-03 Thread Wichert Akkerman
Previously yuppie wrote: But the way lookups are delegated to other site managers seems to be highly optimized and making use of internal apis of five.lsm. So it might not be possible to fix this in five.lsm, in which case Hanno's proposal would provide a solution. That is exactly the

Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: getToolByName depreciation, getUtility, and five.lsm

2007-04-01 Thread Alec Mitchell
On 4/1/07, yuppie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Hanno Schlichting wrote: I would say that all of Acquisition is dark implicit magic and something I expect when developing in Zope 2. When using Zope 3 concepts in Zope 2 I also expect the need to make the Zope

[Zope-CMF] Re: getToolByName depreciation, getUtility, and five.lsm

2007-03-29 Thread Hanno Schlichting
Hi, I'll just offer one alternative solution for disussion, which could avoid reverting all the changes we made. Kapil Thangavelu wrote: We believe that these recent changes have introduced implicit magic into a standard Zope3 api to fit Zope2 acquisition. There should be an explicit separate

[Zope-CMF] Re: getToolByName depreciation, getUtility, and five.lsm

2007-03-29 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Tres Seaver wrote: I'm not sure what impact that would have for the already-converted code which used to use the API. I can see value both in leaving it converted, as showing the Zope3-ish way, as well as in reverting some or all of it. For instance, perhaps we should consider reverting just

[Zope-CMF] Re: getToolByName depreciation, getUtility, and five.lsm

2007-03-28 Thread Martin Aspeli
Kapil Thangavelu wrote: A few of us (Alec Mitchell, Godefroid Chapelle, Balazs Ree, Rocky Burt, Daniel Nouri, Rob Miller, Vincenzo Di Somma, and myself) have been discussing this in depth at the Sorrento Sprint. We've reached consensus on how we hope to resolve the issues arising from the

[Zope-CMF] Re: getToolByName depreciation, getUtility, and five.lsm

2007-03-28 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Martin Aspeli wrote: We believe that these recent changes have introduced implicit magic into a standard Zope3 api to fit Zope2 acquisition. There should be an explicit separate api if we want acquisition wrapped context-aware utilities. As an example of a symptom caused by the implicit