Roger Ineichen wrote:
Hi Martijn and Jim
Behalf Of Martijn Faassen
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 2:22 PM
To: zope3-dev (E-mail)
Subject: [Zope3-dev] interaction between LocationProxy and
IIntId utility
Hi there,
[..]
Finally with some help from Stephan Richter giving us the
clue that this
__name__ and __parent__ information could only be lost if
LocationProxy
is in play, we figured out what what we think is going on:
[...]
This is all fixed by subclassing Contained, but the catalog
not working
reliably for LocationProxy wrapped objects sounds scary. You could do
something with the IntId utility automatically
un-location-proxy-wrapping the objects if necessary, but that
would mean
that what is stored wouldn't know its location anymore, which
would also
be bad.
We have had similar discussion about this. Dominik added earlier
a ITransientLocation (I guess) for such a usecase. Jim suggest to
remove this part. But I still think it's important to know if you
have a real ILocation or a transient ILocation which you get with
LocationProxy.
This was a totally different situation. In your case, you had
location objects that you didn't need to assign locations too.
There was a bug in the intid utility that made you jump through
hoops when it was simpler to just fix the bug.
It whould be nice to have a ITransientLocation(Interface)
and a ILocation(ITransientLocation).
Persistent location are only supported by ILocation and not by
ITransientLocation.
What do you think?
I think it is unnecessary. Persistency and location are
unrelated.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
_______________________________________________
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
