On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Chris McDonough <chr...@plope.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 10:36 -0400, Chris Rossi wrote: >> On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 4:14 AM, Charlie Clark >> <charlie.cl...@clark-consulting.eu> wrote: >> > Am 06.05.2010, 10:10 Uhr, schrieb Chris Withers <ch...@simplistix.co.uk>: >> > >> >> This is spot on, and would, in theory, allow an app to override a >> >> library that overrides a framework. >> > >> > Cue lots of Jim like "wooah!" comments and "it's all Chris' fault" in the >> > code! ;-) >> > >> I hate to just make more work for Chris M. I'm happy to add this to >> my todo list. I have a lot on my plate right now, so don't expect a >> timely implementation, but I'll try to get to it . . . . sometime. > > I'm actually not 100% confident that I understand the syntax, so I don't > think I could implement it yet anyway. > > With "ovverides='some.funcion.or.method'", is the function or method > being overridden assumed to have a view configuration attached to it > that matches the overriding view configuration? If so, that's a little > weird. What if it has different view configuration arguments or or no > view configuration arguments at all? > > A good number of view configuration overrides as performed via ZCML > don't require creatign separate view callable (like changing the > rendererer), so constructing one just to be able to decorate it, then > delegating to the original, seems a little suspect. > > I'm also not sure that this can be advertised as an overrides strategy > 100% comparable to ZCML unless all the various ZCML directives get > Python declarative equivalents. > > So.. yeah, I think there's a cool idea lurking in here, but I'm not sure > we found it yet. > > >
Good point. _______________________________________________ Repoze-dev mailing list Repoze-dev@lists.repoze.org http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev
