Sorry for the long delay in replying.
We've been using widget-specific JS and CSS for some time now and I like our
approach. It's quite different from the proposal.
We're using the same pattern used by forms/widgets -- i.e. the PT is
responsible for explicitly including HTML fragments provided
I don't understand what you just said :-)
My fault -- I haven't been plugged into the other discussion.
Is there a branch somewhere that has a simple demo to help with grokability?
-- Garrett
On Friday, September 16, 2005 12:28 PM, Gary Poster wrote:
On Sep 16, 2005, at 12:49 PM, Garrett
I mean something that illustrates Gary's 'big picture'. I understand the
resource lib proposal, but I don't have any grasp of the broader vision driving
it.
If it's just a patch to get 'rich' widgets working, I'll stick with my initial
impression of it being too magical.
-- Garrett
On
On Friday, September 16, 2005 4:05 PM, Benji York wrote:
Garrett Smith wrote:
If it's just a patch to get 'rich' widgets working, I'll stick with
my initial impression of it being too magical.
The main reasons why this isn't a problem individual widgets
can solve
is that 1) they can't
My point is that if rich widgets are the *only* driver here, the solution below
is a better fit with the existing widgets implementation.
The transformation of the HEAD doesn't jive with existing patterns. If there's
a new pattern afoot (pipelining?), I hope we get a chance to discuss it. If
On Friday, September 16, 2005 3:58 PM, Gary Poster wrote:
You could also be asking about the pipeline ideas, but that's not my
first guess. :-)
Yes, I suspect this is what I'm missing.
There was an earlier post about Ajax. It seems an entirely new approach would
be needed to solidly support
Garrett Smith wrote:
On Friday, September 16, 2005 5:17 PM, Benji York wrote:
Garret Smith wrote:
FWIW, we would not be able to use this new scheme exclusively as some
of our IHeadContent providers provide more than file includes. E.g.
we have a menu component that dynamically builds
On Sep 16, 2005, at 6:15 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
On Friday, September 16, 2005 3:58 PM, Gary Poster wrote:
You could also be asking about the pipeline ideas, but that's not my
first guess. :-)
Yes, I suspect this is what I'm missing.
Maybe so. Maybe you just disagree. :-)
In a
Benji posted this last week and we don't have any feedback yet. We
would really like some, even if it is to ask us to clarify what the
heck it is about. Some of our other code that we want to contribute
depends on this.
The use case for this tool is to allow rich view components, such as
I'll note that I think this overlaps with Roger's pagelet system.
Dealing with resources needed by multiple page components seemed to
be a major motivation for pagelets.
Jim
Gary Poster wrote:
Benji posted this last week and we don't have any feedback yet. We
would really like some, even if
I've added a proposal for Zope 3.2. Read at
http://www.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Projects/ComponentArchitecture/ResourceLibrary.
WARNING: zope.org exhibiting some serious caching strangeness, so please
comment on the list instead of the wiki.
--
Benji York
Senior Software Engineer
Zope
11 matches
Mail list logo