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 - [email protected] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
