Summary of messages to the cmf-tests list.
Period Sun Dec 7 12:00:00 2008 UTC to Mon Dec 8 12:00:00 2008 UTC.
There were 6 messages: 6 from CMF Tests.
Test failures
-
Subject: FAILED (failures=3) : CMF-2.1 Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.5 : Linux
From: CMF Tests
Date: Sun Dec 7 20:51:39 EST
Hi,
Thanks to yuppie, trunk now allows us to use the ++add++
traverser, which will look up an add view as an adapter on (context,
request, fti) with name equal to fti.factory.
This is good, but it does mean that those add views cannot be registered
with a directive. Unfortunately, Five's brow
Hi,
Currently, we have this situation (on trunk):
- Add views are looked up by evaluating the FTI add_view_expr
- The default/conventional add_view_expr is
string:${folder_url}/++add++
- This will look for an adapter (context, request, fti) with name =
fti.factory and return that a
Hi Martin!
Martin Aspeli wrote:
> [...]
>
> In CMFDefault, we have some base classes (tied to formlib) and we do
> manual security with a ClassSecurityInfo and InitializeClass(). This
> feels like a step backwards to me, at least in Plone, where we encourage
> people to use browser views with
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
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").
>>
yuppie wrote:
>> In CMFDefault, we have some base classes (tied to formlib) and we do
>> manual security with a ClassSecurityInfo and InitializeClass(). This
>> feels like a step backwards to me, at least in Plone, where we encourage
>> people to use browser views with declarative (ZCML) securit
