Previously Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > Previously Martin Aspeli wrote:
> >> Hi Yuppie,
> >>>>> 1.) CMF add views adapt not only container and request, but also the
> >>>>> type info object. This way the views can't be accessed directly and
> >>>>> have
> >>>>> self.fti available.
> >>>> This is quite interesting, and possibly necessary. However, it means
> >>>> that CMF add views are not just "views" and will need to be registered
> >>>> differently to other views (i.e. you can't just use <browser:page />
> >>>> which also means that you won't get the Five security treatment etc).
> >>> Yes. This causes more problems than it solves. I think I found a much
> >>> better solution:
> >>> CMF add views are registered for a special layer called IAddViewLayer.
> >>> Like any other layer, IAddViewLayer extends IBrowserRequest. And it
> >>> defines an additional 'ti' attribute for the request.
> >>> Like before views can't be accessed directly and have self.ti available.
> >>> (I now use 'ti' instead of 'fti' because we have other type info
> >>> implementations than FactoryTypeInformation.)
> >> I'm not sure I like this much more. It involves adding a marker
> >> interface to the request conditionally during traversal. You'll possibly
> >> run into funny sequence dependent conditions if you want to customise
> >> the add view for a particular "theme" browser layer.
> >> My preference would be:
> >> - Define an interface IFTIAwareView that has an 'fti' property
> >> - Define a traversal view (@@add) that does this kind of thing on
> >> traversal:
> > Why not a ++add++ traverser? Aren't traversed supposed to be used for
> > that kind of thing? Or does a view gives us something here that a
> > traverser doesn't?
> Namespace traversal adapters are similar to IPublishTraverse solutions.
> The difference is that the namespace traversal adapter normally returns
> something "containerish" from which traversal continues. I think it's
> intended mostly as a "redirect" to a different traversal namespace, e.g.
> in the way that plone.app.portlets has namespaces for portlet managers.
The containerish thing is just a lookup-mechanism, which could be a very
simple thing to figure out the right add view, which shouldn't be
more than half a dozen lines of code. It feels like a perfect fit to
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> It is simple to make things.
http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple.
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests