Re: [Zope-CMF] Customising types with add views
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 I want to create a new type Beta (e.g. by copying the FTI object TTW), based on Alpha. I want this to use Alpha's add form, but construct objects with portal_type Beta. Is this possible? If I set Beta's fti.factory to be something other than Alpha, then it won't find the add view, but if fti.factory is Alpha then the objects constructed will use Alpha's factory. You should be able to register the same add view twice. One registration for the name Alpha and one for the name Beta. Sure. I was thinking more about the case of customising by copying the FTI TTW. I can't quite decide whether this is a problem in real life or not, although it does seem a bit strange that the add view adapter name and the factory utility name have to be the same. Would it make sense to decouple these, e.g. with a new add_view_name property? If people really have that problem we can decouple this later. For now I can't see a need. I suspect it's YAGNI since the add view calls _setPortalTypeName() on the newly created instance as well, so the resulting object will have type Beta, not type Alpha. Oops! I just realized that I didn't read your example correctly. I thought you would *want* to set Beta's fti.factory to something different. As you noticed, using the same factory *and* add view for different portal types is supported. In fact that's the reason why we adapt the type info and can't use normal browser pages. Cheers, Yuppie ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Customising types with add views
Hi Martin! 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 I want to create a new type Beta (e.g. by copying the FTI object TTW), based on Alpha. I want this to use Alpha's add form, but construct objects with portal_type Beta. Is this possible? If I set Beta's fti.factory to be something other than Alpha, then it won't find the add view, but if fti.factory is Alpha then the objects constructed will use Alpha's factory. You should be able to register the same add view twice. One registration for the name Alpha and one for the name Beta. I can't quite decide whether this is a problem in real life or not, although it does seem a bit strange that the add view adapter name and the factory utility name have to be the same. Would it make sense to decouple these, e.g. with a new add_view_name property? If people really have that problem we can decouple this later. For now I can't see a need. Cheers, Yuppie ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Customising types with add views
yuppie wrote: Hi Martin! 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 I want to create a new type Beta (e.g. by copying the FTI object TTW), based on Alpha. I want this to use Alpha's add form, but construct objects with portal_type Beta. Is this possible? If I set Beta's fti.factory to be something other than Alpha, then it won't find the add view, but if fti.factory is Alpha then the objects constructed will use Alpha's factory. You should be able to register the same add view twice. One registration for the name Alpha and one for the name Beta. Sure. I was thinking more about the case of customising by copying the FTI TTW. I can't quite decide whether this is a problem in real life or not, although it does seem a bit strange that the add view adapter name and the factory utility name have to be the same. Would it make sense to decouple these, e.g. with a new add_view_name property? If people really have that problem we can decouple this later. For now I can't see a need. I suspect it's YAGNI since the add view calls _setPortalTypeName() on the newly created instance as well, so the resulting object will have type Beta, not type Alpha. Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
