Christian Theune wrote at 2009-1-19 17:13 +0100: > ... >> You could use the same arguments with respect to the global "site" ;-) >> But few people in Zope 3 land separate "site" dependent and "site" >> independent code despite some cases where the global "site" does >> make problems. > >Using the 'reversal of dependency' (not sure whether this is the >accurate English term) you always end up with a few general concepts >that act as mediators. Sites are badly named 'component registries' and >are part of the central zope.component module which acts as the general >plug-in point, thus the dependency. >The ZCA is intended to be depended >on and activating registries is a part of that. The comparison of a >component registry versus a request does not hold IMHO.
The automatic activation of the local "component registries" has drawbacks similar to other automtisms (acquisition, global request), especially: * violates "explicit is better than implicit" * makes test and scripts more difficult (as either publishing must be used or the registry must be manually activated * does the wrong thing in edge cases (e.g. lead to problems when portal objects are deleted from outside a portal (as then the portal registry has not been activated) * can force a complete rewrite of parts of a system when a need arises to perform operation inside a "site" from outside the "site" (as then the correct site will need to be explicitely passed). >Depending on a request is generally not good Most Web framesworks see this differently and provide global access to the request. Thus, YHO is debatable ;-) -- Dieter _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )