RE: [Zope3-dev] Resource Library Proposal

2005-09-16 Thread Garrett Smith
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

Re: [Zope3-dev] Resource Library Proposal

2005-09-16 Thread Gary Poster
On Sep 16, 2005, at 12:49 PM, Garrett Smith wrote: 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

RE: [Zope3-dev] Resource Library Proposal

2005-09-16 Thread Garrett Smith
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

Re: [Zope3-dev] Resource Library Proposal

2005-09-16 Thread Benji York
Garrett Smith wrote: 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? http://www.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Projects/ComponentArchitecture/ResourceLibraryREADMETxt

RE: [Zope3-dev] Resource Library Proposal

2005-09-16 Thread Garrett Smith
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

Re: [Zope3-dev] Resource Library Proposal

2005-09-16 Thread Gary Poster
On Sep 16, 2005, at 4:15 PM, Benji York wrote: Garrett Smith wrote: 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?

Re: [Zope3-dev] Resource Library Proposal

2005-09-16 Thread Benji York
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 know if things that should only be done once have already been

RE: [Zope3-dev] Resource Library Proposal

2005-09-16 Thread Garrett Smith
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

Re: [Zope3-dev] Resource Library Proposal

2005-09-16 Thread Gary Poster
On Sep 16, 2005, at 5:20 PM, Garrett Smith wrote: That's right. But the view can solve these problems easily without a lot of other stuff like yet-another-ZCML directive and automagical transformation of the HTML head element. ... This is a trivial change to the existing Zope code.

Re: [Zope3-dev] Resource Library Proposal

2005-09-16 Thread Benji York
Garrett Smith wrote: That's right. But the view can solve these problems easily without a lot of other stuff like yet-another-ZCML directive and automagical transformation of the HTML head element. This is what we have: class IHeadContent(Interface): Something that provides head content

Re: [Zope3-dev] Resource Library Proposal

2005-09-16 Thread Jean-Marc Orliaguet
Gary Poster wrote: On Sep 16, 2005, at 5:20 PM, Garrett Smith wrote: That's right. But the view can solve these problems easily without a lot of other stuff like yet-another-ZCML directive and automagical transformation of the HTML head element. ... This is a trivial change to the

RE: [Zope3-dev] Resource Library Proposal

2005-09-16 Thread Garrett Smith
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

RE: [Zope3-dev] Resource Library Proposal

2005-09-16 Thread Garrett Smith
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

Re: [Zope3-dev] Resource Library Proposal

2005-09-16 Thread Benji York
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

Re: [Zope3-dev] Resource Library Proposal

2005-09-16 Thread Gary Poster
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

Drop-in rich (JS/CSS-dependent) view components: Please review (was Re: [Zope3-dev] Resource Library Proposal)

2005-09-07 Thread Gary Poster
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

Re: Drop-in rich (JS/CSS-dependent) view components: Please review (was Re: [Zope3-dev] Resource Library Proposal)

2005-09-07 Thread Jim Fulton
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