Am 09.12.2009, 19:22 Uhr, schrieb yuppie <>:

Hiya yuppie,

> -1
> I don't think a write-on-read solution is acceptable.

Okay. How about on creation?

>> 2) Uneditable TypeInfo method
>> Apart from transparency I can't see any reason for making this value
>> editable so it could be implemented as a property doing much the same as
>> above.
> -1

> For several reasons I think this should be an expression:
> - At the moment you can specify any kind of add view name and
> implementation. E.g. you can use a skin method or set an alias.

> - The traverser is configured in ZCML and its name can easily be
> changed. I don't think it is a good idea to hardcode assumptions about
> configuration in the type info code.

> - Type infos are now also Action objects and should be configured in a
> similar way as normal Actions.

>> Thoughts?
> I'm afraid any attempt to make this simpler also makes it less explicit
> and less flexible.

I'm a big fan of "explicit is better than implicit" but only part of the  
expression is flexible. The traverser and TypeInfo id are not but they are  
also not interpolable when the expression is evaluated which goes against  
the spirit of expressions, I think.

BTW. how do addViews cross the CMFCore CMFDefault divide? Shouldn't the  
traverser be part of CMFDefault?

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

See for bug reports and feature requests

Reply via email to