[Zope3-dev] Utility Registration was:RE: [Zope3-Users] pluggableauthentication utility

[Roger Ineichen]

Hi Garrett

From: Garrett Smith [mailto:garrett at mojave-corp.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 12:01 AM
> To: dev at projekt01.ch
> Cc: zope3-dev at zope.org
> Subject: RE: [Zope3-dev] Utility Registration was:RE: 
> [Zope3-Users] pluggableauthentication utility
[...]
> 
> I guess I'm not aware of anything that has anywhere near the
> configuration complexity of the PAU.

Perhaps ;-)

> > - I dont' like to have more then one implementation if not
> >   absolutly needed only for configuration reason.
> 
> I don't see this as a configuration issue. For most applications, the
> PAU is too flexible/powerful and I think this is source of lots of
> usability questions. A SimplePAU could be implemented using adaptation
> so that a new PAU type wouldn't be necessary.

Ok, that's right. But I don't like to support two concepts
for PAU. I think the users get confused again.

> > - The activation part on the registration process is still
> >   the same. The most problem is that we implement components
> >   where using the utility and lookup this utilities by a special
> >   name or unnamed. But nobody tells you what name should be used
> >   during registration.
> 
> I think the delineation is named vs. unnamed. I agree with Stephan and
> Jim that utilities that are used without names should not ask 
> for names
> -- those that use names should require them. I would add (this has
> probably already been added, don't recall) a utility should have some
> way of communicating that interface or interfaces that it could be
> registered for. E.g. it doesn't make much sense to register 
> the PAU for
> IAnnotations.

Yup

> But to reiterate -- the PAU registration does *not* accept a 
> name value
> and does *not* let the user register for anything other than
> IAuthentication. I haven't heard anyone complain about the 
> registration
> issues of PAU since that change.
> 
> > I still think a policy (somthing like a add wizard) whould solve
> > the problem. Developers can develope the registration process in
> > a pytho class and register tehm as a "utilityPolicy". Then
> > administrators or scripters can add the utility witha simple klick
> > on a "add predefined utility" button.
> 
> This sounds like a lot of work for the developer.
> 
> > On nice sideeffect whould be,
> > You could also add a policy "Add all utility I need for a site".
> > Or even call this policy during makeSite on your special
> > implementation of IPossibleSite.
> 
> I do like this idea. This is in the spirit of the server bootstrap
> module that ensures that a particular set of utilties are 
> available and
> configured on startup.
> 
> I definitely think something likethis is needed for the "Make a Site"
> action.
> 
> So, perhaps something like this:
> 
>   <siteconfig
>     name="foo.bar.mysite"
>     title="My Site"
>     description="Create my cool new site."
>     configurator=".configMySite" />
> 
> This would setup a menu and register an adapter to something like
> ISiteConfig that would be used to configure a newly created site.

Perhaps we can solve the PAU problem with a IFactory called
CreateSimplePAU and this factory can add and configure the PAU.

Can we use a factory class for creating utilities?

Regards
Roger Ineichen 

> 
>  -- Garrett
>