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:
> 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
> 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
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -