Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>>>> Mmmm... I'm not sure most people would find it natural to think about
>>>> the add form as an adapter like this.
>>> Well. I find it natural to think about browser pages as a special kind
>>> of adapters.
>> Having explained this to a lot of different people with different levels
>> of experience, I think "natural" is too strong a word for most people.
>> The fact that browser views are adapters is an implementation detail
>> that often give people an "aha!" type reaction when they really
>> understand it. However, a lot of people will use browser views for a
>> long time without really understanding adapters (if they ever do or care).
Well. I guess it depends on your perspective. For Plone users adapters
might be implementation details, for others they are important tools for
solving many different problems.
>>> I can't see a fundamental problem in using the generic adapter directive
>>> for registering browser pages. I just see limited support for the
>>> adapter directive in Zope 2. As long as these issues are not resolved, I
>>> can live with Zope 2 security declarations in add views.
>> FWIW, I think this'll work:
>> <class class=".add.DefaultAddView">
AFAICS this should be IBrowserPage or IPageForm, not IBrowserView.
>> I don't much like it, though. :-/
I like it ;) This is not perfect. But better than using oldstyle Zope 2
security declarations. I'll change my checkins.
> Meh - of course, I meant:
Providing customized solutions for specific use cases makes it easier to
solve these use cases, but it also makes the framework more complex and
less framework-ish. I can't see a need for the directive you propose.
But if you also volunteer to maintain the additional code in the long
run, I can live with it.
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests