Am 13.07.2008 um 14:08 schrieb Martin Aspeli:
Thanks for restarting the discussion and thanks to Yuppie for his
implementation. We've been using it with the changes I outlined the
other week to good effect for the last couple of months.
Bah, I hate these discussions. I'm sure Daniel Nouri would be happy
to relicense. Re-invention for the sake of a license is just too dumb.
I think we all hate such discussions but that's the way it is when
derivative code gets given a different licence.
I'd prefer to keep the name to avoid breaking existing packages,
Another option is to factor out a few things to a five.z3cform and
have plone.z3cform import from it as appropriate.
This is probably necessary anyway. I'm not sure whether it's right to
try and go straight to z3c.form. My understanding is that there isn't
a great deal of difference between the two libraries so hopefully an
implementation could live with both. I don't think that everyone has
moved onto z3c.form - certainly that wasn't my impression at
Europython. It would be nice to have a formlib based CMF 2.2 and I
think I now understand most of this well enough to contribut. We could
possibly onto z3c.form in 2.3 which might have replaced zope.formlib
in Zope by then.
In any case, I'd like to know why you went down the portal_actions
route for rendering the add links. I'm not quite sure I like the
idea of having this be persistent configuration, separate to the
FTI, as the two would need to be kept in sync, and in sync with
the view name registered in ZCML.
CMF makes a distinction between portal types and content types.
Portal types are persistent wrappers around the non-persistent
content types. You can define many different portal types based on
one content type.
In CMF you add *portal type* instances, so the 'add' links should
be persistent as well. The non-persistent add form has to take the
portal type name as argument to create the correct portal type.
I'm not sure what the right solution is, but I guess extending the
type info classes will be the best approach.
Also, why not try to use the Zope 3 menu concept? There's even a
special "add menu" directive.
Moving away from persistent actions is not on my todo list. And as
I tried to explain above, the current portal type concept depends
on persistent actions.
Right, I see that. But having things in two places is obviously not
very desirable either.
I'd quite like to find a good approach here that can be used by
both Plone and plain CMF, if possible.
I hope you find one ;)
How about we use a naming convention that's linked to the factory
that's persisted in the FTI, i.e. we look for a view called "add-
<factory_name>" and link to that if it's available.
You might as well stick with actions if you're going to do that. I've
been experimenting with the following
portal_type = self.request.form.get('portal_type')
at = getToolByName(self.context, 'portal_actions')
actions = at.listFilteredActionsFor(self.context)
addable = actions.get('add', )
for a in addable:
if a['id'] == portal_type:
return request.response("%s/%s" (%self.context.absolute_url(),
It's workable but so easy to break as it relies on "add" actions
having the same name as the portal_type. It makes much more sense to
me to have this on the type info: if I ask the type tool for the
factory, surely I can also ask it for the view?
The idea is that the factory name is unique and specific to the
content type. Different portal types that use the same factory would
almost by necessity have the same add view.
We could make this overrideable as well, with another FTI property.
The assumption here is that the add menu is rendered with some
custom code, i.e. it doesn't use the actions machinery or the Zope 3
browser menu concept.
Yes, I think that has to be the case.
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests