Martin Aspeli wrote at 2007-1-6 22:06 +0000: >Hanno Schlichting wrote: > >> The idea is to use a specialized persistent component registry, that >> does the needed AQ-wrapping. >> >> This will however only give us AQ-wrapped local utilities, whereas those >> registered with the global component registry wouldn't be wrapped. I >> think this might be an acceptable trade-off. > >Are you sure? Does *every* local utility want an aq wrapper?
Some of them want (e.g. the "Catalog" and the proposed "ISiteRoot" "utilitiy"). Thus, it is easier (for all of us) when all utilities with an "__of__" method are wrapped. > .... >I'm not even sure if tools that are well-written (do not rely on >acquiring things from 'self') need to do so except for security when >called TTW, in which case getToolBy(Interface)Name will do the trick. > >Bluntly adding acquisition like this seems like a step in the wrong >direction, imho. Currently returned tools (via "getToolByName") are acquisition wrapped. I think this should stay this way. In Zope 2, non acquisition wrapped objects behave very strangely. E.g. most "OFS.Traversable.Traversable" methods no longer work correctly; and (as you already noted) security fails. In my view, this indicates that all objects with "__of__" method should be correctly acquisition wrapped. -- Dieter _______________________________________________ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
