a couple of weeks ago there was some discussion about the skin/layer
support for XML-RPC which I implemented without asking (shame on me).
As some time has passed now everybody could have some fresh thoughts
Let me first summarise:
* Skin and layers should be seen as typing the request.
* There are no general objections against having layers for XML-RPC.
* There are objections against using ++skin++ for XML-RPC, ++api++
would be fine.
Discussing the issue here at gocept again we've come to the following:
There are different kinds of request (BrowserRequest, XMLRPCRequest,
FTPRequest, …) which depend on the “channel” or server zope is accessed
Then, depending on the kind of request, it often is desirable to
further type the request:
* a skin for browser requests
* an API for xmlrpc requests
* maybe different listings or content views for webdav
We’d like to codify this understanding (the general concept of marking
a request with a type) using a general IRequestType which all specific
type implementations (skins, APIs, ...) are derived from. In our view
this allows for understandably named implementations for each channel
but still provide a common base.
Therefore we propose to:
* Create in zope.publisher.interfaces:
* Rename IXMLRPCSkinType to IXMLRPCAPIType(IRequestType) and create a
traverser ++api++ for IXMLRPCApiType.
* Use IRequestType as new base of IBrowserSkinType (instead of IInterface).
* Do *not* provide any traverser for IRequestType since the traversers
should be close to the “channel” so it is easy to understand what is
happening. If the traverser name is too far fetched we end in confusion
like with skin for xmlrpc.
gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstrasse 29 · 06112 halle/saale
www.gocept.com · fon. +49 345 12298894 · fax. +49 345 12298891
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -