[Zope-CMF] Re: [dev] CMF 2.0 browser views and Five traversal
Hi Philipp! Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: yuppie wrote: Some details: - I'd like to keep the changes the extension profile makes as small as possible. So I don't want to change the visible action targets. All we need are some Method Aliases that point to the views. - We need new names for the views. I'd like to use @@view.html, @@edit.html and @@properties.html for the views that already exist. +1 for saner view names. document_view or document_edit_form is just a lame legacy from the one flat view namespace that portal_skins provide. Well. Actually I propose to hide those saner view names for now. Changing the visible names using Method Aliases is possible since CMF 1.5. That has nothing to do with switching to browser views and should be part of a different proposal. All I want for now are browser view names that have a good chance to become the official visible names some time in the future. By the way, unless you make @@view.html the default view name for documents or whatever (using five:defaultViewable and browser:defaultView), why not call it @@index.html?? The 'view' view is not always the default view. Image and File have download as default. I guess index.html should always be an alias for the default view. I proposed to use Method Aliases, so the default view would still be set in the types tool (or profile XML), not in ZCML. Cheers, Yuppie ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] Re: [dev] CMF 2.0 browser views and Five traversal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 yuppie wrote: Hi Philipp! Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: yuppie wrote: Some details: - I'd like to keep the changes the extension profile makes as small as possible. So I don't want to change the visible action targets. All we need are some Method Aliases that point to the views. - We need new names for the views. I'd like to use @@view.html, @@edit.html and @@properties.html for the views that already exist. +1 for saner view names. document_view or document_edit_form is just a lame legacy from the one flat view namespace that portal_skins provide. Well. Actually I propose to hide those saner view names for now. Changing the visible names using Method Aliases is possible since CMF 1.5. That has nothing to do with switching to browser views and should be part of a different proposal. All I want for now are browser view names that have a good chance to become the official visible names some time in the future. By the way, unless you make @@view.html the default view name for documents or whatever (using five:defaultViewable and browser:defaultView), why not call it @@index.html?? The 'view' view is not always the default view. Image and File have download as default. I guess index.html should always be an alias for the default view. I proposed to use Method Aliases, so the default view would still be set in the types tool (or profile XML), not in ZCML. +1 to your proposal. +1 to Phillip's suggestion that 'index.html' should be the name for the default view. Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEDzPv+gerLs4ltQ4RAt2EAJ9EX8jsDlQgvY2OLmBeNnAtXtiQlgCgyGIP PlwButphwQygjD46HtiCG3E= =Ctou -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] Re: [dev] CMF 2.0 browser views and Five traversal
Hi Jens! Jens Vagelpohl wrote: - We need new names for the views. I'd like to use @@view.html, @@edit.html and @@properties.html for the views that already exist. I think 'metadata_edit_form' and 'folder_edit_form' are both in fact properties views and 'folder_contents' is just a special edit view. I'd like to use the same names for container views as for content views. Love the proposal, hate the @@ naming. Do we need that? Or is the goal to align better with the Zope 3 way of naming views? I'd like a simple index.html or edit.html etc much better. For now I just propose to use the '@@' names internally. The users will still see the old names, the Method Aliases machinery maps them to the new names. For example this profile XML is for the Document aliases: ?xml version=1.0? object name=Document alias from=(Default) to=@@view.html/ alias from=view to=@@view.html/ alias from=document_view to=@@view.html/ alias from=document_edit_form to=@@edit.html/ alias from=metadata_edit_form to=@@properties.html/ /object You could access the edit view with 'edit.html' instead of '@@edit.html', but that has a major drawback: View names are not protected in any way if used without '@@'. You can easily screw up your site by adding content with the ID 'edit.html'. Names used by Method Aliases are protected *and* Method Aliases are looked up first. So it would be safe to define an 'edit.html' alias for 'document_edit_form' or '@@edit.html'. I actually do that on my sites. But changing the visible names is not part of my proposal. Cheers, Yuppie ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] Re: [dev] CMF 2.0 browser views and Five traversal
On 8 Mar 2006, at 16:52, yuppie wrote: You could access the edit view with 'edit.html' instead of '@@edit.html', but that has a major drawback: View names are not protected in any way if used without '@@'. You can easily screw up your site by adding content with the ID 'edit.html'. Names used by Method Aliases are protected *and* Method Aliases are looked up first. So it would be safe to define an 'edit.html' alias for 'document_edit_form' or '@@edit.html'. I actually do that on my sites. OK, thanks for explaining. Sounds good then. But changing the visible names is not part of my proposal. Well, I personally would love to change the visible names. The old names are worse than the @@-prefixed new names ;) jens ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] Re: [dev] CMF 2.0 browser views and Five traversal
On 8 Mar 2006, at 17:36, yuppie wrote: Hi Jens! Jens Vagelpohl wrote: But changing the visible names is not part of my proposal. Well, I personally would love to change the visible names. The old names are worse than the @@-prefixed new names ;) I agree. But the old names are the status quo. Replacing them by Method Aliases is possible since CMF 1.5 and has nothing to do with the viewification. If we change the visible names this should be done in a consistent way, not just for the few methods that are converted to views. Maybe you should discuss with the release manager if the beta phase is the right time for a change like that ;) Oh god no, I was just voicing my general dislike of the old names. Changes like that in the beta phase? Over my dead body ;) jens ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: [dev] CMF 2.0 browser views and Five traversal
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 11:14:59PM +0100, yuppie wrote: Paul Winkler wrote: On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 10:52:09PM +0100, yuppie wrote: You could access the edit view with 'edit.html' instead of '@@edit.html', but that has a major drawback: View names are not protected in any way if used without '@@'. You can easily screw up your site by adding content with the ID 'edit.html'. Could you elaborate? Does not protected mean that security is bypassed??? or what? Sorry. I thought the context makes clear what I mean. Protected against overriding. Any user who is allowed to add content can override them with content objects. Ah, obvious in retrospect. I totally mis-parsed your message. Thanks. -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] Re: [dev] CMF 2.0 browser views and Five traversal
yuppie wrote: Based on the discussion on the Five list I propose this solution: 1.) To become independent of the lookup order views are named different than the corresponding skin methods. 2.) Skins *and* views are always enabled. 3.) A new extension profile hooks up the views instead of the skin methods. This seems like an elegant solution. Enabling Five traversal and views by default is a big change so we might need an other beta release. I would strongly suggest that. Some details: - I'd like to keep the changes the extension profile makes as small as possible. So I don't want to change the visible action targets. All we need are some Method Aliases that point to the views. - We need new names for the views. I'd like to use @@view.html, @@edit.html and @@properties.html for the views that already exist. +1 for saner view names. document_view or document_edit_form is just a lame legacy from the one flat view namespace that portal_skins provide. By the way, unless you make @@view.html the default view name for documents or whatever (using five:defaultViewable and browser:defaultView), why not call it @@index.html?? Philipp ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
