Dario Lopez-Kästen wrote:
>
> Anyway. In case you were wondering what the previous email meant, there's
> the
> actual meaning d8)
I'm sure Andy's got a point, but we haven't got the context of those points.
Is he complaining about the change in UserFolder API in Zope 2.5?
cheers,
Chris
Whew, that email (and the preceding one in the thread) is quite a
whopper. In substance, amk raises some pretty serious issues that we
need to come to grips with very quickly.
I don't have enough information to respond right now, but trust that
we'll get a good response back today.
Neo-mode
Yikes, it was pointed out to me that I typed "amk" instead of "akm".
Though I knew it was Andrew Milton and not Andrew Kuchling, I mixed up
the letters. (In fact, as I was typing it, I was thinking "wow, that
looks like Andrew Kuchling's monogram.")
--Paul
Paul Everitt wrote:
>
> Whew, th
A K Milton wrote:
>
>
> a) The change to manage_* seems to be completely arbitrary, since we already
>had _do* methods that meant you didn't have to call manage_users with
>fake submit buttons. So what is the point of having manage_ ?
They were added in response to this fishbowl propos
Steve Alexander wrote:
>
> In summary:
>
> I want to make sure that things are no worse in Zope 2.5 final than in
> Zope 2.5. Any breakage caused by this API change is a bug, and needs to
> be sorted out by Zope 2.5 final.
That should have read:
I want to make sure that the user managem
> > a) The change to manage_* seems to be completely arbitrary,
> since we already
> >had _do* methods that meant you didn't have to call manage_users with
> >fake submit buttons. So what is the point of having manage_ ?
>
>
> They were added in response to this fishbowl proposal:
>
> http
> I see an intention not to break other user folder products. Given that
> the fishbowl proposal in question is supposed to make for a very small
> change, any breakage in existing products is a bug in its implementation.
I've just checked in changes that I believe address all of the
issues (t
