Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
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
If you want to have non-views as browser default, we still need to use
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
+1 on an alternative spelling, like five:defaultPublishedName or even
five:defaultView if that's not too error-prone.
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
Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France) Director of R&D
+33 1 40 33 71 59 http://nuxeo.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -