Hi Robert,
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 view.
I'm not quite sure I follow here. The portlets machinery just looks up
the add view in a utility t
Am 14.07.2008 um 12:37 schrieb yuppie:
Add links are just special 'actions', they should be integrated with
CMF's action machinery. Based on the information in the type infos
we should be able to create normal IActionInfo objects. (IActionInfo
defines the non-persistent wrapper around acti
Am 14.07.2008 um 12:17 schrieb yuppie:
CMF 2.1 was released with some formlib based edit forms. I don't
think it was a mistake, because at that time z3c.form wasn't
available in the Zope 2 world.
It certainly wasn't a mistake in fact I think it was great. To me it
seems reasonable at lea
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 15.07.2008, 08:53 +0100 schrieb Martin Aspeli:
> Hi Robert,
>
> >>> 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 view.
> >> I'm n
Robert Niederreiter wrote:
i took this idea and the
adding mechanism of devilstick works this way as well and depends on the
fti too. so a call of foo/add/portal_type returns an add view for
requested type.
How's that different to foo/+/ ?
not that much. i only wanted to say that there might be
Am Dienstag, den 15.07.2008, 12:43 +0200 schrieb yuppie:
> Robert Niederreiter wrote:
> > i took this idea and the
> > adding mechanism of devilstick works this way as well and depends on the
> > fti too. so a call of foo/add/portal_type returns an add view for
> > requested type.
Summary of messages to the cmf-tests list.
Period Mon Jul 14 11:00:00 2008 UTC to Tue Jul 15 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: Mon Jul 14 21:42:02 EDT 2008
URL: htt
Hi Martin!
Martin Aspeli wrote:
CMF trunk uses events instead of _finishConstruction.
Ah, nice. Do you think it'd be feasible to backport this, i.e. copy
the event handler somewhere in Plone so long as Plone's still using
an older version of CMF? Or does the new event handler rely on other
c
Robert Niederreiter wrote:
Your proposal has some advantages. On the other hand this requires to
create CMF specific code and patterns in a place where a more generic
solution also works.
it does not if you call a formfactory inside the traverser, so it's
hoohable for CMF, Plone or whatever ev
Hi,
I'm having a problem with encoding of properties.xml, and I'm not sure
if its an issue of CMFCore or Plone. Maybe it's not even an issue, but
here it goes:
If the properties.xml file doesn't include any charset declaration, in
CMFCore.exportimport.properties, _importNode relies on
defau
Robert Niederreiter writes:
> Am Dienstag, den 15.07.2008, 12:43 +0200 schrieb yuppie:
>> Robert Niederreiter wrote:
>> > i took this idea and the
>> > adding mechanism of devilstick works this way as well and depends on
>> > the
>> > fti too. so a call of foo/add/portal_type retu
Hi Ricardo!
Ricardo Alves wrote:
I'm having a problem with encoding of properties.xml, and I'm not sure
if its an issue of CMFCore or Plone. Maybe it's not even an issue, but
here it goes:
If the properties.xml file doesn't include any charset declaration, in
CMFCore.exportimport.properties
Daniel Nouri writes:
> Robert Niederreiter writes:
>> yuppie writes:
>>> I like pretty URLs, and 'foo/+/' looks much prettier than
>>> the URLs needed with my approach:
>>>
>>>foo/?form.portal_type=
>>>
>>> Your proposal has some advantages. On the other hand this requires to
>>> create
yuppie wrote:
Robert Niederreiter wrote:
Your proposal has some advantages. On the other hand this requires to
create CMF specific code and patterns in a place where a more generic
solution also works.
it does not if you call a formfactory inside the traverser, so it's
hoohable for CMF, Plone
Daniel Nouri wrote:
Daniel Nouri writes:
Robert Niederreiter writes:
yuppie writes:
I like pretty URLs, and 'foo/+/' looks much prettier than
the URLs needed with my approach:
foo/?form.portal_type=
Your proposal has some advantages. On the other hand this requires to
create CMF sp
Charlie Clark wrote:
Am 14.07.2008 um 12:37 schrieb yuppie:
Add links are just special 'actions', they should be integrated with
CMF's action machinery. Based on the information in the type infos
we should be able to create normal IActionInfo objects. (IActionInfo
defines the non-persisten
yuppie wrote:
Hi Ricardo!
Ricardo Alves wrote:
I'm having a problem with encoding of properties.xml, and I'm not
sure if its an issue of CMFCore or Plone. Maybe it's not even an
issue, but here it goes:
If the properties.xml file doesn't include any charset declaration,
in CMFCore.exportim
Am 15.07.2008 um 23:38 schrieb Martin Aspeli:
Actually, that's interesting... what purpose does 'initial view'
serve in a world with add forms?
The same as it ever has - you redirect to the "initial view" from the
add form because the add form is actually registered for the container
(IF
18 matches
Mail list logo
