[Framework-Team] Re: merging florian's icon work

2006-12-03 Thread Hanno Schlichting
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
 Are there any objections to merging the updated icon handling? The
 changes are quite small and they bring us a lot more flexibility.

+1 for merging


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


[Framework-Team] Re: merging florian's icon work

2006-12-03 Thread Martin Aspeli

Wichert Akkerman wrote:

Are there any objections to merging the updated icon handling? The
changes are quite small and they bring us a lot more flexibility.


+1 to merge

Martin


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


[Framework-Team] Re: Can I merge plone.memoize and plone.app.layout?

2006-12-03 Thread Martin Aspeli

Rocky Burt wrote:

On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 13:01 +, Martin Aspeli wrote:
That means, that to get hold of the portal_membership tool in a 
template, say, I could write context/@@plone_tools/portal_membership. 
The first time any template or code (say, in a view class) did that, it 
would do getToolByName to find portal_membership, and on subsequent 
times, it would be memoized tied to the request (so even if you looked 
up @@plone_tools again, you'd get the same memo, so long as it was in 
the same request).


Wait, is it the @@plone_tools view lookup that's being cached on the
request or is it the portal_membership tool lookup that the view is
doing that is being cached on the request.  It's not clear to me.


The latter. So, if three different things look up @@plone_tools, and 
they all do @@plone_tools/portal_membership, getToolByName(self.context, 
'portal_membership') will be called only once.


There are three views: @@plone_tools (contains various tools); 
@@portal_state (contains information about the portal as a whole, 
including the current authenticated member, the is_anonymous flag, the 
portal_url etc); and @@context_state (contains information about the 
context, e.g. pretty title, workflow state, actions dict etc.


These sound pretty good to me.


Cool.

Obviously that granularity could change, but I found that it made sense 
to have more than one (to avoid the dumping ground problem) but not 
too many (to avoid having to remember lots of them).


Right, this looks like a healthy compromise.


Good.


Now, what I'd like to do tonight (Wiggy?) is:

  - Add these to the bundles
  - Make Products.CMFPlone.browser.plone.cache_decorator an alias for 
plone.memoize.instance.memoize, and derecate

  - Make various things that use @cache_decorator use @memoize directly.


Sounds good.



  - Add the viewlet managers to main_template


Sounds good.


  - Change @@plone's globalize() to use the new memoized views where 
appropriate; at this point we can start formally deprecating 
global_defines if we wish.


Hmm... now this really sounds good.


I thought you may not mind :)

  - Change various places I can think of to use the @@plone_tools, 
@@context_state and @@portal_state views; obviously this would be an 
evolutionary thing, but I'd really rather get it in ASAP so people can 
start using it.


Sure, makes sense.

The funny thing is that if we start using @@plone_tools for all tool
lookups and with CMF2.1's changes of the tools to be standard utilities
so we start using getUtility in non-zpt code the subplone-style
functionality becomes so much easier.  Dare I say that if
subplone-style functionality is then given to us for free (essentially)
we should expose this functionality directly as a standard core plone
feature?  Whoops, maybe I'm getting ahead of myself... :)


Not entirely sure I follow...


ps. +1 on everything


Heh, cool.


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