On Mar 13, 2006, at 1:22 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
On Mar 13, 2006, at 1:06 PM, yuppie wrote:
I'm not concerned about my own app code. I know the problem and
how to fix it.
And I'm not concerned about people like you who monkeypatch that
code. You know that monkeypatching is always on your own risk and
you know how to modify your monkey patch even if more code is
changed than 'bad_id'.
I'm concerned about the people we encourage to use Five
technology. Views are a major feature of Five. Should we warn
people not to use views? Or instruct them how to patch Zope 2 to
protect views against being masked by content IDs?
IMO, we should fix it "right" and live with the status quo until we
do (which is that content ids can shadow views). I don't think
it's worth it to hack it in the meantime. It just doesn't seem
like that much of an emergency, IMO.
Also, FWIW, it just occurs to me that even though I do use Five, I've
never generated a "@@" URL. It appears purely optional to use the
"@@" syntax in the URL to call a view. Most of the examples I've
seen out there don't use it either.
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -