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

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
or something...

+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
sound right.


Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France)   Director of R&D
+33 1 40 33 71 59   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Zope-Dev maillist  -
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to