Previously Martin Aspeli wrote: > Wichert Akkerman wrote: > > 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 > > me. > > I don't feel particularly strongly either way, so long as there's an > actual namespace rather than a naming convention and we avoid an > IPublishTraverse adapter for all IFolderish. > > ++add++PortalType is a bit uglier than /@@add/PortalType IMHO, but it's > a transient URL so it doesn't really matter.
It makes it more explicit that there is no real @@add 'thing' that is traversed over. > I think it's worth finding out why we have +/IAdding being a view and > not a namespace traversal adapter, though. It feels that things like > ++skin++ or ++vh++ are a bit different to ++add++, though perhaps not. The + naming for IAdding has always been a mystery to me. It feels very out of place considering that it is just about traversing into a add-view namespace. Wichert. -- 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 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests