Summary of messages to the cmf-tests list.
Period Mon Dec 8 12:00:00 2008 UTC to Tue Dec 9 12:00:00 2008 UTC.
There were 6 messages: 6 from CMF Tests.
Tests passed OK
---
Subject: OK : CMF-2.1 Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.5 : Linux
From: CMF Tests
Date: Mon Dec 8 20:48:44 EST 2008
URL:
Hi Martin!
Martin Aspeli wrote:
yuppie wrote:
How about a new cmf:addview /
directive that mimics browser:page /, but registers the
(context,request,fti) adapter? I could probably put that together if
people think it's a good idea.
CMF add views are different because they are looked up
Martin Aspeli wrote:
yuppie wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
[...]
Let's consider a type Alpha that has a custom add form registered as
such a (context, request, fti) adapter with name Alpha. fti.factory is
Alpha, and there's a corresponding IFactory utility (with name Alpha).
Now, let's say
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Hi Yuppie,
It is not obvious why you have to use explicit Zope 2 style security for
add views and declarative Zope 3 style security for other views. But I'd
rather like to see the 'permission' attribute of adapter / implemented
for Zope 2 instead of a new cmf:addview
Hi Yuppie,
It is not obvious why you have to use explicit Zope 2 style security for
add views and declarative Zope 3 style security for other views. But I'd
rather like to see the 'permission' attribute of adapter / implemented
for Zope 2 instead of a new cmf:addview / directive.
Mmmm...
