Hi!
Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Then why do we have <browser:page />?
I guess primarily for historical reasons. And because zope.app is in
some parts an application, not a framework. And because the 'template'
attribute is sometimes a convenient shortcut.
> You could of course do:
>
> <adapter
> for=".interfaces.IMyType
> Products.CMFDefault.interfaces.ICMFDefaultLayer"
> provides="zope.interface.Interface"
> name="myview"
> factory=".myview.MyView"
> />
> <class class=".myview.MyView">
> <require
> permission="zope2.View"
>
> allowed_interface="zope.publisher.interfaces.browser.IBrowserPage"
> />
> </class>
The <class/> hack is not necessary in Zope 3. This is much closer to
<browser:page/> and easier to read:
<adapter
for=".interfaces.IMyType
Products.CMFDefault.interfaces.ICMFDefaultLayer"
provides="zope.publisher.interfaces.browser.IBrowserPage"
name="myview"
factory=".myview.MyView"
permission="zope2.View"
/>
Cheers,
Yuppie
_______________________________________________
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
