Martin Aspeli wrote:
> yuppie wrote:
>> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>>> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>>>> 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.
>> I don't think a containerish return value is characteristic for
>> namespace adapters. For example the ++view++ traverser usually doesn't
>> return something containerish.
>> I now implemented an ++add++ traverser in my sandbox and it seems to
>> work fine.
> Cool. :) Let us know when it's checked in, I'd love to have a look at it!
Ok. I checked in all my local changes. AFAICS everything works fine, but
tests are still missing.
Please note that so far only File has a full add view. All other content
types use the fallback add view.
I still use the pattern that adapts ITypeInformation as well. Our add
views are anyway Zope 2 specific, so I don't think requiring explicit
Zope 2 security declarations is unacceptable. All other solutions have
also their drawbacks.
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests