[Zope-Coders] Re: [ANN] Proposed Features for Zope 2.7: OrderedObjectManager

[Shane Hathaway]

Yuppie wrote:
> You say: "Folder already does too much." But I never heard of plans to 
> cut down Folder in Zope 2. I don't think that's an option anybody wants 
> to discuss.

I'm saying I prefer that we not expand it.  The features already there 
are a major burden to maintain.

> So the remaining question is (at least in my view):
> 
> What is the "unnecessary burden" of adding the API for ordering to the 
> Zope 2 Folder and what could we win?
> 
> The burdon is: manage_renameObject has to be changed. The result will be 
> a minor impact on renaming speed and an other position of renamed 
> objects. I'd guess at least 99% of users don't recognize the difference 
> or prefer the new renaming in place.

The larger burden is that Zope developers will come to rely on the new 
API, which will then be taken away for Zope 3.  It seems to me that a 
better course of action is to require Zope developers to specify that 
they need a folderish object that retains order and has the order 
maintenance API.  That way Zope developers insulate themselves from the 
effects of a pending change.

> The benefit is: Less monkey patching of manage_main and more 
> posibilities just one klick away.

You can achieve these same benefits by maintaining another folder class. 
Yes, it's one more choice that the user has to make, but AFAIK very few 
people need to retain arbitrary order in folders (not anyone that I know 
personally) and those few who need it can make that choice.

How often have you wished that filesystem directories retained order?  I 
certainly never have.  On most Unix systems, the service control scripts 
in /etc/rc.d/ require order, but order is retained by a naming 
convention.  It works quite well.

Shane