Re: [Zope3-dev] skin support for xmlrpc
On Monday 27 August 2007 16:11, Christian Theune wrote: > 1. We revert the change. > > 2. We create a new traverser with a different namespace that implements > our intended behaviour. > > Two options after that: > > 3a. We supply this traverser by default, or > > 3b. We ship it in a separate package. +1 with option 3b. BTW, you should have a look at z3c.traverser, which allows you to not use namespaces at all anymore. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] skin support for xmlrpc
On 27.08.2007, at 22:11, Christian Theune wrote: Hi, Am Freitag, den 24.08.2007, 07:55 +0200 schrieb Jodok Batlogg: hi christian, it seems like your recent changes to support skins in xmlrpc views introduced some troubles. we spent several hours to debug not working xmlrpc views and finally found that nailing the zope.traversing egg to 3.4.x resolved the troubles. while looking at your changes we were wondering why you want to support skins in xmlrpc views? for me, a xmlrpc call is a remote procedure call and has to do nothing with skins. it's not yellow, pink or orange and has no templates associated. can you explain your use-case for this? Let me try to wrap some of the things up here. When we drafted this change, we followed the idea of the refactoring for skins as they are now (switching from a separate skin/layer implementation to the current marker interfaces on requests) which was very technically focused. So were we. I see that we're misusing the ++skin++ traversal namespace and should introduce another namespace instead. Our mistake. We introduced the change as we thought it to be straightforward and a logical extension. As stated above we overlooked the simple solution of another traverser. We did not anticipate it to be such a strong problem otherwise we'd created a separate proposal instead of just going forward. Zagy posted a reply to your question for a use case on that thread in the checkins list [1] but unfortunately that thread died off with this message and nobody returned to it. Let me propose a change: 1. We revert the change. 2. We create a new traverser with a different namespace that implements our intended behaviour. Two options after that: 3a. We supply this traverser by default, or 3b. We ship it in a separate package. I do have the feeling that differentiating the XML/RPC-API based on specifics of the request are of value (it certainly is for us) as are skins. perfectly fine. i prefer the separate package :) jodok If we can decide to ship a new traversal namespace for zope.publisher then we'd be happy to do that. Otherwise we'll just go on with a separate package. Hooray for the CA. Christian [1] ... http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/checkins/2007-August/ 012638.html ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/batlogg.lists% 40lovelysystems.com -- "Simple is better than complex." -- The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters Jodok Batlogg, Lovely Systems Schmelzhütterstraße 26a, 6850 Dornbirn, Austria phone: +43 5572 908060, fax: +43 5572 908060-77 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] skin support for xmlrpc
Hi, Am Freitag, den 24.08.2007, 07:55 +0200 schrieb Jodok Batlogg: > hi christian, > > it seems like your recent changes to support skins in xmlrpc views > introduced some troubles. > we spent several hours to debug not working xmlrpc views and finally > found that nailing the zope.traversing egg to 3.4.x resolved the > troubles. > > while looking at your changes we were wondering why you want to > support skins in xmlrpc views? for me, a xmlrpc call is a remote > procedure call and has to do nothing with skins. it's not yellow, > pink or orange and has no templates associated. can you explain your > use-case for this? Let me try to wrap some of the things up here. When we drafted this change, we followed the idea of the refactoring for skins as they are now (switching from a separate skin/layer implementation to the current marker interfaces on requests) which was very technically focused. So were we. I see that we're misusing the ++skin++ traversal namespace and should introduce another namespace instead. Our mistake. We introduced the change as we thought it to be straightforward and a logical extension. As stated above we overlooked the simple solution of another traverser. We did not anticipate it to be such a strong problem otherwise we'd created a separate proposal instead of just going forward. Zagy posted a reply to your question for a use case on that thread in the checkins list [1] but unfortunately that thread died off with this message and nobody returned to it. Let me propose a change: 1. We revert the change. 2. We create a new traverser with a different namespace that implements our intended behaviour. Two options after that: 3a. We supply this traverser by default, or 3b. We ship it in a separate package. I do have the feeling that differentiating the XML/RPC-API based on specifics of the request are of value (it certainly is for us) as are skins. If we can decide to ship a new traversal namespace for zope.publisher then we'd be happy to do that. Otherwise we'll just go on with a separate package. Hooray for the CA. Christian [1] ... http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/checkins/2007-August/012638.html ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
