On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Martin Aspeli <optilude+li...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 25 March 2011 13:17, Jim Fulton <j...@zope.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 4:24 AM, Wolfgang Schnerring <w...@gocept.com> wrote:
... >>> 2. zope.component has two entry points, the global site registry and >>> the current registry (getGlobalSiteManager and getSiteManager). >>> The current registry can be anything, or more precisely, you can call >>> getSiteManager.sethook(callable) and provide a callable that returns >>> the current registry. >>> >>> I think to provide test support for zope.component (i. e. generally, >>> at the "library level"), we need to support both entry points. >> >> Why? Why would someone care about anything other than the current >> effective configuration. > > Agree. There is a problem in that provideAdapter() and friends don't > use getSiteManager() - the always use the global site manager. And > there are parts of zope.component that use module level variables > directly, ignoring hooks. These are meant to work this way. If you want to do local configuration, you should explictly select the relevent registry/manager or call getSiteManager and use the result. >>> -- but anyone could at any time >>> call getSiteManager.sethook to change it! >> >> Seriously? Nobody calls that but deep infrastructure code. > > People do call zope.site.hooks.setHooks() sometimes, though, e.g. upon > traversal. This was never meant to be an application-level feature. I find the notion that people would call these dureing traversal to be disturbing. Are you sure you're not confusing this with setSite? Jim -- Jim Fulton http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
