Hi,
maybe it's a little late to join this discussion. i read the thread and
want to point some of my thoughts here.
imo its a bad idea to depend on static zcml configuration for factory
types. martin did a nice approach in his portlets engine with a name
traverser when calling a generic adding vi
Daniel Nouri wrote:
Martin Aspeli writes:
Yuppie writes:
but in general that's the way to go. Since z3c.form became the
standard in the Zope 3 world I'd like to see Zope 2 and CMF moving
in the same direction. Unfortunately using plone.z3cform is no
option for CMF because it has a different lic
Martin Aspeli writes:
> Yuppie writes:
>> but in general that's the way to go. Since z3c.form became the
>> standard in the Zope 3 world I'd like to see Zope 2 and CMF moving
>> in the same direction. Unfortunately using plone.z3cform is no
>> option for CMF because it has a different license and
>
Charlie Clark wrote:
Am 13.07.2008 um 20:21 schrieb Martin Aspeli:
I doubt that formlib will be replaced by z3c.form. Rather, it just
seems that everyone prefers to work with the latter and so the
former is becoming less relevant.
I wonder who "everyone" is? When I asked Maartijn Faassen a
Am 13.07.2008 um 20:21 schrieb Martin Aspeli:
I doubt that formlib will be replaced by z3c.form. Rather, it just
seems that everyone prefers to work with the latter and so the
former is becoming less relevant.
I wonder who "everyone" is? When I asked Maartijn Faassen as
Europython he did
Hi Yuppie,
Ok. I added some comments to the 'add' method of plone.z3cform:
Thanks for that!
def add(self, object):
container = aq_inner(self.context)
content = object
name = self.contentName
chooser = INameChooser(container)
#
Hi Tres,
Putting the policy in the typeinfo objects seems like a much saner place
to keep this stuff than embedding it in a component registry.
+1, at least if we're talking about persistent configuration (which I
guess we are).
Do you have a preference for what shape this should take?
-
Charlie Clark wrote:
This is probably necessary anyway. I'm not sure whether it's right to
try and go straight to z3c.form. My understanding is that there isn't
a great deal of difference between the two libraries so hopefully an
implementation could live with both. I don't think that every
Hi Martin!
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
It's also worth noting that z3c.form (via plone.z3cform, which should
be plain CMF compatible, though you may want a different default
template) has support for such views in quite a generic way. The
"CMF" version of that looks like this:
Am 13.07.2008 um 14:08 schrieb Martin Aspeli:
Thanks for restarting the discussion and thanks to Yuppie for his
implementation. We've been using it with the changes I outlined the
other week to good effect for the last couple of months.
Bah, I hate these discussions. I'm sure Daniel Nouri
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I see that Yuppie has been experimenting with add forms. From what I can
> tell, he's using a custom formlib base class and registering views as
> e.g. addFile.html. It also look as if he's registering that view
Hi Yuppie,
Martin Aspeli wrote:
I see that Yuppie has been experimenting with add forms. From what I can
tell, he's using a custom formlib base class and registering views as
e.g. addFile.html. It also look as if he's registering that view as an
action in portal_actions, in the 'folder' categ
Summary of messages to the cmf-tests list.
Period Sat Jul 12 11:00:00 2008 UTC to Sun Jul 13 11:00:00 2008 UTC.
There were 9 messages: 9 from CMF Tests.
Tests passed OK
---
Subject: OK : CMF-1.6 Zope-2.8 Python-2.3.6 : Linux
From: CMF Tests
Date: Sat Jul 12 21:38:43 EDT 2008
URL: htt
13 matches
Mail list logo
