Gary Poster wrote:
What if we still deprecated browser:layer but
kept a redefined version of browser:skin? Then your zcml--
interface
interface=.interfaces.ShanghaiSkin
type=zope.publisher.interfaces.browser.IBrowserSkinType
/
utility
Gary Poster wrote:
On Feb 16, 2006, at 12:09 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
[...interface... change counter-counter-proposal...]
I think that's a very nice improvement over the previous spellings. I
had to review the zope.app.component.interface.provideInterface code,
but yes, it
On Feb 16, 2006, at 10:52 AM, Benji York wrote:
One downside to the expanded interface directive is that it hides
the fact that a utility is also being created. I actually prefer
the browser:skin version because it totally hides the underlying
atomic operations, but the
Gary Poster wrote:
On Feb 16, 2006, at 10:52 AM, Benji York wrote:
One downside to the expanded interface directive is that it hides the
fact that a utility is also being created. I actually prefer the
browser:skin version because it totally hides the underlying atomic
operations, but
Benji York wrote:
One downside to the expanded interface directive is that it hides the
fact that a utility is also being created. I actually prefer the
browser:skin version because it totally hides the underlying atomic
operations, but the interface-also-registers-a-utility version
On Feb 15, 2006, at 6:03 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Hi there,
a while back I wrote a proposal on simplifying the skinning system
(http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/SimplifySkinning). I got a lot of useful
feedback which in turn made me update the proposal. Since then I
haven't
heard much
Hey Gary,
thanks for your feedback.
I like many parts of it. I didn't like the fact that the zcml ended
up being longer.
Me neither :(.
I didn't love that people had to start asking
questions about interface types in order to register a skin.
Interface types are a cost--another layer of
