[Zope3-dev] Re: AW: deprecate ++etc++site/default?

[Christian Zagrodnick]

On 2007-06-19 22:13:59 +0200, Bernd Dorn <bernd.dorn at lovelysystems.com> said:

> 
> On 19.06.2007, at 19:46, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> 
>> Christian Theune wrote:
>>> I can't remember who I talked to about this who pointed out to me  that,
>>> in most cases, you don't have to care about the `default` folder  and can
>>> put the utilities that you don't want in content space just directly
>>> into the site manager.
>>> Due to that I don't see a reason for a `default` site-management  folder
>>> inside the site manager. I never had the use-case for more than one
>>> package, but I'm also somewhat unsure what they really are about.
>>> I just re-read the doctests in zope.app.component and they only talk
>>> about the mechanics of the site managers and site-management folders.
>>> They give a vague hint that they can be used to "logically  organize your
>>> software". I don't think I'm going to "organize" my software in the
>>> ZODB, so I'm a bit puzzled at what that means.
>> 
>> Site management folders had a meaning and incorporated machinery  once. 
>> That's gone now. They're just dumb containers now. The  'default' thing 
>> is an artefact. It is totally possible to add your  local utilities 
>> anywhere you want, they don't even have to be in a  container as long 
>> as they're persisted in the registry.
>> 
>> In the interest of removing cruft and making things more straight- 
>> forward for newbies, 'default' should be ripped out. In the  interest 
>> of existing projects, however, BBB must provided.
> 
> +1
> 
>> 
>> I suggest a hack: We remove 'default' and from now on put utilities  
>> directly into the site manager. For BBB, we allow access to a  
>> 'default' subcontainer which is faked::
>> 
>>   Let's get a site and look at its site manager:
>> 
>>     >>> site = getSite()
>>     >>> site_manager = site.getSiteManager()
>> 
>>   The site manager is empty or, in case of the root site manager,  it has
>>   a few default utilities:
>> 
>>     >>> list(site_manager.keys())
>>     ['ErrorReportingUtility', 'ClientIDManager', ...]
>> 
>>   Even though there seems to be no 'default' folder anymore, it's  still
>>   possible to get it:
>> 
>>     >>> default_folder = site_manager['default']
>>     >>> list(default_folder.keys())
>>     ['ErrorReportingUtility', 'ClientIDManager', ...]
>> 
> 
> +1
> 
>>   (I imagine site_manager.__getitem__ simply returning self when
>>    key == 'default')
>> 
> 
> -1
> i think we should let people create a thing called 'default' if they  
> want to, it just doesn't matter
> 
> why not just raise a deprecation warning if no default folder is  there 
> and some code traverses default, but if an object is there with  this 
> name it should be alright because then the default folder was  created 
> in an old release or by intent.

Right. I guess we should check if there is an object called default. If 
there is just don't do anything special. If there is not return self 
with deprecation warning.


> 
>>   Note that adding a subitem called 'default' won't be allowed:
>> 
>>     >>> site_manager['default'] = object()
>>     Traceback (most recent call last):
>>     ...

Your -1 goes was for this part, was it not?



-- 
Christian Zagrodnick

gocept gmbh & co. kg  ·  forsterstrasse 29 · 06112 halle/saale
www.gocept.com · fon. +49 345 12298894 · fax. +49 345 12298891