Martijn Faassen wrote:

Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:

Martijn Faassen wrote:

my impression is that if you want TTW editing you'll have to do it on an application level using what's available in the framework (utilities, ZPT, ...) Zope3 allows you to do this already and in a much cleaner way than with zope2..

That's great! How to make this work in the context of a Zope 2/CMF setup, the one Martin is working in? Remember the legacy codebase here; it's not an option to throw it out just like that.

through Five I guess :-)

So what in Zope 3 lets you do a TTW modification of views right now? Where should Martin start looking?

I don't have the competence though or the exact vision on how to do it. What I'm doing though as a matter of philosophy is to stick as much as possible to standard Zope3 concepts (adapters, utilities, ZCML, event subscribers, views, ...), to make the backporting from zope3 to zope2 easier.

That's good. Of course Five is trying to port these concepts over to Zope 2, but I myself wouldn't know how to build TTW modification of Five views right now. What's the Zope 3 equivalent?

Note that I doubt Martin can buy into all of CPSSkins anytime soon. They're looking into porting CMF-style skins into Zope 3-style views using Five. He's worried that the ability for TTW modification of views will be gone when Zope 3 style views are in use in Plone. So, something is needed in Zope 3 with at least equivalent power to TTW CMF skin customization to Zope 2, without having to rewrite all of the Plone skins in anything more than a fairly mechanical way. Evolution is the keyword here; a revolution is not affordable.




What I'm claiming is that is that TTW customization is valuable and that Zope3 has to leverage this in a way or in another. What I question is the idea of customizing "views". What CPSSkins does is that it allows every resources to be customized TTW, but the view that does the final composition is a standard filesystem view. This is why I'm saying that Zope3 supports this already, provided you don't customize the view but the resources used by the view. This may have been misleading to express it that way, but the goals and the results are the same.

When looking at TTW possibilities I started with trying to emulate the portal_skins filesystem directory view approach that is used in Zope2. My conclusion was that only resources, or templates understood as resources need to be customized, the actual view mechanism can stay on the filesystem and it can call the resources instead.

can't just a view be created that calls resources (ZPT, etc)? why does the entire view itself have to be customized TTW?

Regards /JM

Zope-CMF maillist  -

See for bug reports and feature requests

Reply via email to