having looked at the diff (and having witnessed its creation on the plane ;-) i'd hereby like to +1 the plip, as well as the implementation. it's a small, useful enhancement and i would like to keep it small. let's keep refactoring ATCT for another day and plip ;-)

cheers,

tom


On 21.10.2008, at 16:48, Andreas Zeidler wrote:

On 20.10.2008, at 19:21, "Alec Mitchell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 9:51 AM, David Glick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:







Why is a calendar support mixin used, instead of adapting to
ICalendarSupport?  The latter would make it easier to also implement
calendar support for non-AT content.

that's because all that code already existed in atct. i've merely added a single view putting a few pieces together -- please see the diffs in that branch. so the question is rather why atct is using mixins instead of adapters!? ;)

apart from that, i'd agree that the latter would make things more flexible, of course.

No mixins please.

+1, but like i said, i didn't put it in nor was i about to take over maintenance of atct... ;)


andi

_______________________________________________
Framework-Team mailing list
Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team



_______________________________________________
Framework-Team mailing list
Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team

Reply via email to