Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Martin Aspeli wrote: >> 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.
In Zope 3 '+' *is* a real page with content. Maybe that's the reason? Anyway. I like the idea to use a traverser. It's more explicit and if you want different URLs you can hide them behind aliases. Cheers, Yuppie _______________________________________________ Zope-CMF maillist - [email protected] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
