Lennart Regebro wrote: > On 6/18/06, Philipp von Weitershausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > The remaining important question is: if a *default* view is specified >> > using the zope 3 mechanism, should we always treat it as a zope 3 view, >> > and refuse to lookup an attribute with that name? >> >> Yep. browser:defaultView should only affect the view machinery. > > OK, that means that the test in Five.browser.tests.test_defaultview > lin 94 iw wrong, as it explicitly tests that they CAN be attributes. > ;) > > This tests whether an existing ``index_html`` method is still > supported and called: > > >>> print http(r''' > ... GET /test_folder_1_/testindex HTTP/1.1 > ... ''') > HTTP/1.1 200 OK > ... > Default index_html called > > > From Five.browser.tests.defaultview.zcml: > > <browser:defaultView > for="Products.Five.tests.testing.simplecontent.IIndexSimpleContent" > name="index_html" > /> > > If you want to have non-views as browser default, we still need to use > __browser_default__, then.
Hmm, perhaps browser:defaultView isn't such a bad idea then... :). Actually, I don't have much of an opinion, to be honest. I just thought that it would make sense that browser:defaultView only modified the behaviour of Zope 3 views. The fact that it also modifies the behaviour of the general traversal machinery in Zope 2 sounds like a blessing if we get to avoid __browser_default__ this way; if it turns out to be a curse for other people, then perhaps we need a five:defaultPublishedName or something... > The option is to allow attributes, and specify the browserdefault with > @@ to force it to be a view. Hmm. <browser:defaultView ... name="@@index.html" />??? That doesn't sound right. Philipp _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )