Re: Why changes in triggerEvent? AND headScript

Its the same again but in this case with the headScript functionality: 
headScript lies in dtml/zms/headscript.dtml
It is responsible for the JavaScript-loading lines in the HTML-header
and it can be automatically replaced by a script with the id
"headScript" in the ZMS-homefolder in ZMI. The quirk here is, that it
has to be located exactly into the homefolder, not in the hierarchy
above. Acquisition is not possible.
We want to implement our own headScript, but we have a lot of ZMS-Nodes
in a hierarchical tree, where the templates all lie on top of the tree
and get fetched from the nodes by acquisiton. Due to the
acquisition-unfriendly behaviour of headScript, we have to put a copy of
our headScript to each node. 
This is thwarting our template architecture and also what zms-publishing
is propagating for big sites.
Its the same as with the onChangeObjEvt funktionality (see below).
Why is that in this way? Can this get changed to be more
acquisiton-friendly?

Regards
Peter Zechmeister, WebOffice-JKU




Am Montag, den 13.08.2007, 12:55 +0200 schrieb Peter Zechmeister:
> Hi,
> 
> we have got some troubles, because there have been some changes in
> _versionsmanager since one of the latest ZMS-Versions which affect our
> architecture.
> 
> The funcion "triggerEvent" does look only into homefolder for
> eventscripts any more
> 
> for ob_id in self.getHome().objectIds():
> 
> In former versions it did acquisition from above 
> 
> if hasattr(self,name):
> 
> This is bad, because we have onChangeObjEvt - logic at one central
> place
> above in the tree. Now we have either to patch the ZMS or to put the
> onChangeObjEvt script to each ZMS-Home folder.
> 
> What was the reason for those changes?
> 
> Regards
> Peter Zechmeister, WebOffice-JKU
> 
> -- 
> Knight Rider was a very stupid American television show. Its only
> redeeming social value was, of course, the blinking lights.
> http://www.joedog.org/JoeDog/Wackyd
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
-- 
It's struck me that the desire of people to market the RUP as the single
process led to a result where people can do just about anything and call
it RUP - resulting in RUP being a meaningless phrase.
(http://www.martinfowler.com/articles/newMethodology.html)