-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Chris McDonough wrote:
> 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.
Views for containers which want to disambiguate view lookup from item
traversal should use '@@view.html'. Non-containers don't have the
ambiguity, and hence don't need the hint.
Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -