my shiny new content type is now working pretty much as expected. Thanks to Tres and Jens for pointing me in the right direction and giving me encouraging nudges.

For the necessary forms, at least based on the CMF Event code, it seems to me that code like

options['title'] = form.get('title', context.Title())
options['text'] = form.get('text', context.text)
options['text_format'] = form.get('text_format', context.text_format)
options['headline'] = form.get('headline', context.headline)
options['teaser'] = form.get('teaser', context.teaser)
options['category'] = form.get('category', context.category)
options['keywords'] = form.get('keywords', context.keywords)
options['resources'] = form.get('resources', context.resources)

could be optimised in the context could be treated as a dictionary object, ie. supported get.


attrs = ['headline', 'teaser', 'category']

optins = {}
# assign attributes that do not require additional processing
for attr in attrs:
        options[attr] = form.get(attr, context.get(attr))

# attributes that need special treatment...

I was initially confused that the context was the same as the instance of my content-type and didn't support this as I use this idiom quite frequently to reduce my typos. Is this too much of an edge case to warrant the extension in general (but I'm free to do it myself) or perhaps an outdated methodology?

If I need to add attributes to portal users such as their full name, is it best to customise the member object for my site or to use a plugin?

Charlie Clark
Helmholtzstr. 20
D- 40215
Tel: +49-211-938-5360
GSM: +49-178-782-6226

Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org

See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests

Reply via email to