Am 09.12.2008 um 14:34 schrieb Martin Aspeli:

> Meh - of course, I meant:
>
>     <cmf:addview
>        name="my.type"
>        for="Products.CMFCore.interfaces.IFolderish"
>        fti="..interfaces.IDexterityFTI"
>        class=".add.DefaultAddView"
>        permission="cmf.AddPortalContent"
>        />


Hiya,

I agree that many people do not understand immediately that Views are  
Adapters. This is partly conceptual but also related to conventions in  
ZCML and elsewhere: it's very natural in English to contract "view  
adapters" to "views" and "subscriber adapters" to "subscribers", etc.  
which is why we get ZCML-directives like "subscriber" and "browser". I  
think it is correct to encourage developers to move to the ZCML  
approach for configuring security and as the new add views are CMF  
specific using a special CMF directive would make this clearer.

A separate but related issue might be how we deal with CMFDefault: you  
seem to refer to it in much the same way I do as the basis for more  
work as it provides so much useful functionality out of the box but  
Jens, Tres and others never tire of pointing out that it is actually  
only a demonstration of what's possible. Should we think of breaking  
the formlib stuff out of CMFDefault? So that it can be used without  
CMFDefault? I don't know whether it should move to its own package or  
CMFCore.

Charlie
--
Charlie Clark
Helmholtzstr. 20
Düsseldorf
D- 40215
Tel: +49-211-938-5360
GSM: +49-178-782-6226



_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to