Lennart Regebro wrote:
From people's comments, here and on the archetypes mailing list, I am
pretty convinced that there is support for a through the web editing
environment, even from Alexander Limi, expert on human interfaces and
co-author of Plone.
On 4/26/07, Dieter Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote at 2007-4-25 22:13 +0200:
>But readable and comprehensible magic...but I would not call that
If I see at class level a function call "grok.context(something)",
this does not look like "comprehensible magic".
It sets the grok context to something. Is that really incomprehensible?
There was talk about TTW for Zope 3, for Archetypes, but not for Zope 2.
I understand that ZClasses are crufty inside. I now understand we can
toss out propertysheets becasause Zope 8 allows protection of individual
properties. I wish I had time to implement that. Right now I do not
even have time to update the upgrade plans for ZClasses. They are on
I would love to see detailed documentation of Zope Product Classes.
Perhaps we could create a cleaner ZClasses that just drives the Zope
Product class. I would not even mind a server restart for each new
class, evidently that is required for file system classes, but not
ZClasses. No wonder ZClasses is strange. It had to be to make it
possible to do more than Products can do.
Detailed design documentation of Zope 2 Products would perhaps make it
clear why ZClasses are implemented the way they are implemented.
As for grok contexts, you are arguing about a blade of grass. Look at
I would like to be able to build a complete app, a network of objects
persisted on the the ZODB, with a couple of clicks. Then I could add
methods on top of that. ZClasses gives me a path in that direction. I
have some of my own tools to take me further.
Why am I not going with Zope3? It seems like way too much overhead.
But most importantly it does not give me the stuff I am really looking
for. Sure it does some schema stuff, but that is mostly for 1 object
and its user interface, rather than over the whole network of objects.
Why are there schemas for the user interfaces, and interfaces for the
other interfaces? Lack of symmetry. Zope3 checks that the next object
in the network has the right interface. That is too complex for me. I
just want to say that a person can have a role hiring manager, a role
candidate, a role recruiter, or a role accountant. So Zope 3 does not
provide the abstraction that I am looking for. Which leaves me with
Zope 2. And I am back to building up my own desired abstractions on Zope
My point is not to make this flame war break out again. I just want to
make sure there is clear documentation for an alternative point of
view. Actually all of the criticism has been very helpful in getting
me to better understand the issues.
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -