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 -also-registers-a-utility versi
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
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 -also-registers-a
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Cool. I'll adjust the proposal tomorrow. I wonder if Benji would be ok
with it, given he objected browser:skin...
It's not really that I object to browser:skin specifically, it's just
that when one thing can be expressed in terms of another and reused as a
sin
Gary Poster wrote:
> On Feb 16, 2006, at 12:09 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> [... 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 looks li
On Feb 16, 2006, at 12:09 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
[... 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 looks like that would be a simple c
Gary Poster wrote:
What if we still deprecated browser:layer but
kept a redefined version of browser:skin? Then your zcml--
could become
name="ShanghaiSkin" />
Even though it's longer, I still like the interface/utility version. I
think it really helps the developer
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
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
