Could someone help me understand adding adding ZClasses a bit further?
First I had a problem with nested ZClasses, which got me into trouble
when I wanted to add ZClasses to each other. So I followed the 'common
wisdom' of adding all ZClasses at the top level of the product. THis
generally works
- Original Message -
From: "Rik Hoekstra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 4:28 AM
Subject: [Zope-dev] Recursively adding ZClasses (continued)
> First I had a problem with nested ZClasses, which got me into troub
Thanks for replying Kevin, but it won't work ;-( I tried it ALL, and it
_will_not_work_. The nested ZClasses will apparently solve it (I used it
elsewhere), but it will get you into trouble in other situations - if
you want to add an instance of the nested zclass to an existing instance
of that
Rik Hoekstra writes:
This currently adds recursive ZClasses for me. All ZClasses are on the top
level of the Product, no nesting:
I cut a few things out that didn't have to do with the
Thanks a lot Jason,
I'll try it (though i'd swear I tried something very much alike)
>
>This currently adds recursive ZClasses for me. All ZClasses are on the top
>level of the Product, no nesting:
>
>
> "ComponentClass.createInObjectManager(_.getitem('unique_id', 1), REQUEST)">
hm,
Rik Hoekstra writes:
> Thanks a lot Jason,
>
> I'll try it (though i'd swear I tried something very much alike)
>
> >
> >This currently adds recursive ZClasses for me. All ZClasses are on the top
> >level of the Product, no nesting:
> >
> >
> > >"ComponentClass.createInObjectManager
-Original Message-
From: Jason Spisak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Rik Hoekstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Kevin Dangoor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: woensdag 7 juni 2000 22:26
Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] Recursively adding ZClasses (co
Rik Hoekstra:
Good to hear you got it.
> >Rik Hoekstra writes:
> >
> >> Thanks a lot Jason,
> >>
> >> I'll try it (though i'd swear I tried something very much alike)
>
> It was very much alike, but you were right ;-).
>
> The difference was that I did a
>
> (sort of cut down pseudocode)
>
>
