Hi, Thanks to yuppie, trunk now allows us to use the ++add++<type> traverser, which will look up an add view as an adapter on (context, request, fti) with name equal to fti.factory.
This is good, but it does mean that those add views cannot be registered with a <browser:page /> directive. Unfortunately, Five's browser:page does quite a lot of stuff, from allowing a template to be specified, to setting up class and attribute level security, to supplying a docstring if required to allow publication. In CMFDefault, we have some base classes (tied to formlib) and we do manual security with a ClassSecurityInfo and InitializeClass(). This feels like a step backwards to me, at least in Plone, where we encourage people to use browser views with declarative (ZCML) security. It's difficult to explain that add forms are "special" so that they need to have manual security, explicit docstrings (for better or for worse), and be registered as an <adapter />, not a <browser:page />. Did we envisage a solution to this? How about a new <cmf:addview /> directive that mimics <browser:page />, but registers the (context,request,fti) adapter? I could probably put that together if people think it's a good idea. Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book _______________________________________________ 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
