Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: 'layer' vs. 'type'
I wasn't sure about the layer to type renaming myself. Plus, it would've been one of those janitorial changes that just weren't worth it. That's why I didn't do it. It looks like the process has already started. Should things like these be reverted then (zope.app.component.metadirectives): class IBasicResourceInformation(zope.interface.Interface): Basic information for resources (...) type = zope.configuration.fields.GlobalInterface( title=_(Request type), required=True ) (...) class IResourceDirective(IBasicComponentInformation, IBasicResourceInformation): Register a resource # BBB 2006/02/18, to be removed after 12 months layer = LayerField( title=_(The layer the resource is in. This argument has been deprecated and will be removed in Zope 3.5. Use the 'type' argument instead.), required=False, ) (...) class IBasicViewInformation(zope.interface.Interface): This is the basic information for all views. (...) # BBB 2006/02/18, to be removed after 12 months layer = LayerField( title=_(The layer the view is in.), description=_( *BBB: DEPRECATED* A skin is composed of layers. It is common to put skin specific views in a layer named after the skin. If the 'layer' attribute is not supplied, it defaults to 'default'.), required=False, ) -- Gustavo Niemeyer http://niemeyer.net ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: 'layer' vs. 'type'
Gustavo Niemeyer wrote: Hello everyone, I was just implementing a ZCML statement for a view-related component which should also take in consideration request interfaces for adaptation. After reading the SimplifySkinning proposal form Philipp, I'm somewhat unsure about how to define the request type in the ZCML directive in a way similar to what developers would expect in standard directives. I've seen in the code base and also in Philipp's proposal that the renaming of 'layer' to 'type' isn't complete yet, so I'd like to ask: does it really make sense? Consider something like the following: browser:something type=.ISomeInterface / I read this as the type of something is ISomeInterface rather than something is used with ISomeInterface requests. Let's take a more concrete example: IMenuItemsDirective. It's one of the many directives with a 'layer' field. If renamed to 'type', wouldn't that clash with the concept of MenuItemTypes? With this in mind I propose to either keep this argument as 'layer', or use a term that better represent the relation with request types, answering the question type of what?. What do you think? I wasn't sure about the layer to type renaming myself. Plus, it would've been one of those janitorial changes that just weren't worth it. That's why I didn't do it. Philipp ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
