On 4/23/06, Andreas Reuleaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the naming browser2:page vs. browser:publish vs. ... is
not that important as the original name browser:page can be
reintruduced (with the meaning of the new concept) after the
deprecation period, i. e. I am thinking of having two
On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 09:36:37AM +0200, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 4/23/06, Andreas Reuleaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the naming browser2:page vs. browser:publish vs. ... is
not that important as the original name browser:page can be
reintruduced (with the meaning of the new
On 4/23/06, Andreas Reuleaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, I wonder if you read my suggestion carefully. In particular
I suggested having a period where only the new (and ugly) statement
is allowed, and only after that to reintroduce the old statment
with a new meaning.
Yes, so you suggest
Lennart Regebro wrote:
I'm -1 on this proposal.
I agree, browser:page is too complex and magic. The reason for it's
complexity and magic is that there are two things that clash: 1. The
need to have simple and easy view registrations, and 2. The
requirement that view must be callable classes.
On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 02:52:14PM +0200, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 4/23/06, Andreas Reuleaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, I wonder if you read my suggestion carefully. In particular
I suggested having a period where only the new (and ugly) statement
is allowed, and only after that to
On 4/23/06, Philipp von Weitershausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A publishable view must provide IBrowserPublisher. We happen to call
such browser views pages. This requirement and this nomenclature has
worked well since very early days of Zope 3. I'm not suggesting to
change that.
I'm just
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 4/23/06, Philipp von Weitershausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A publishable view must provide IBrowserPublisher. We happen to call
such browser views pages. This requirement and this nomenclature has
worked well since very early days of Zope 3. I'm not suggesting to
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 4/23/06, Andreas Reuleaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, I wonder if you read my suggestion carefully. In particular
I suggested having a period where only the new (and ugly) statement
is allowed, and only after that to reintroduce the old statment
with a new meaning.
Andreas Reuleaux wrote:
On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 02:52:14PM +0200, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 4/23/06, Andreas Reuleaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, I wonder if you read my suggestion carefully. In particular
I suggested having a period where only the new (and ugly) statement
is allowed, and
On 4/23/06, Philipp von Weitershausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is using a convenience base class really that much more complexity for
the user? It's perhaps a little more typing, but it gives you less magic
in return. Less magic is less complexity in a way.
Depends on what you mean with
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
If people don't like the 'browser2' prefix, I'm open to other
suggestions. For all I care, the three directives I suggested could be
on the 'browser' namespace, only browser2:page and browser:page clash.
So perhaps browser2:page should be named something else.
Florent Guillaume wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
If people don't like the 'browser2' prefix, I'm open to other
suggestions. For all I care, the three directives I suggested could be
on the 'browser' namespace, only browser2:page and browser:page clash.
So perhaps browser2:page should
Hi!
I've written a report on the work I did during the CPS4/Z3ECM sprint i
Paris:
http://www.z3lab.org/sections/blogs/jean-marc-orliaguet/2006_04_23_cps4-z3ecm-paris-sprint
there is also a new zope2 product called CPSSkins4Five for running
cpsskins (for zope3) on zope2 .
13 matches
Mail list logo
