Godefroid Chapelle wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 10 Apr 2007, at 10:30, yuppie wrote:
c) improving five.lsm (Rocky)
AFAICS this is an other attempt to resolve the same issue:
http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2007-March/025708.html
We have to decide which way to go. I prefer c) if it works, b)
otherwise.
Same here. c) first, then b). Strongly against a).
Before the sprint, I have spent more than one day exploring (c) Rocky's
proposal and did not get to anything satisfactory. The
zope.interface.adapter.AdapterRegistry would need to be
acquisition-aware. IOW, we would once again pollute Z3.
Why isn't it sufficient to use a customized version of AdapterRegistry
for five.lsm? If the direct lookup in the registry returns wrapped
utilities, other site managers and registries don't have to be
acquisition-aware. No?
Yuppie
_______________________________________________
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
