Hash: SHA1

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
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to