Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP 246: View for rendering events as an iCalendar file
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
RE: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIP 244: Portlet management improvements
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:framework-team- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Danny Bloemendaal Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 4:47 AM Cc: framework-team@lists.plone.org Team Subject: Re: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIP 244: Portlet management improvements On 17 okt 2008, at 01:29, Jon Stahl wrote: One other thought to contribute to this topic: Right now, the system renders all placeful portlets, then all group portlets, then all type portlets. Grouping is bad. Especially if you allow some form or ordering. No user wants to be bound by an arbriary technical reason for grouping. If a user wants to have portlets in a mixed order, that is pretty much impossible. Perhaps we can add a simple weight value to each portlet, then order portlets by weight, regardless of whether they are place, group or type portlets? There are some UI considerations, and maybe this is too invasive. But we get it a fair amount. Weight? Why that? Why not allow them to be mixed as the user wants? Why that grouping at all? It's a technical reason not a usability reason. Just allow them to be mixed and you are done. I even would like to suggest to have the option to mix them on a user bases with drag and drop and store the order in cookies or something like that. We have that here in our intranet together with collapsible support and that works really well. But that's another topic ;-). I think control of ordering should (mostly) be a site-admin task, except in the intranet situations you describe where it might be pushed to the user (along with other portlet control). Other than that, I think we're saying the same thing. :Jon ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] review deadline: this monday
Might I remind everyone that the review deadline is this Monday? Will someone gather the results and report them? Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
