Am 01.04.2010, 16:11 Uhr, schrieb Hanno Schlichting <ha...@hannosch.eu>:
> The class you get from any ZCML directive is going to be the one from
> Five using the Five.bbb.AcquisitionBBB mix-in. It emulates enough of
> Acquisition without actually using it. You cannot opt-out of that bit
> of bbb support for the ZCML directives. At some stage it might make
> sense to allow this. But I'd only consider this if you could opt-out
> of all Five specific features for all browser directives at once. For
> now the little bit of extra mix-in doesn't hurt much and you'll hardly
> ever notice it. The change is described at
Thanks for the link. If legacy is as lightweight as with formlib then no
problem at all.
> "here" vs. "context" is the most trivial of the differences and one
> could make that change. Since the two are simple aliases, it's easy
> and only tedious to do the switch. On its own it doesn't have much
> benefit though. But it's all the other things which are hard. For
> example there's no "restricted page template" story outside Zope 2.
> There's nothing to move to, except you decide to drop the support of
> this particular feature. But that's not something that is sensible to
> do for Zope 2. An application like Plone can make the decision to stop
> supporting TTW development in the long run. For Zope 2 that doesn't
> make any sense, as TTW development is what makes it Zope 2.
I must say how impressed I was at how easy it was to migrate my various
small projects to 2.12. TTW is still required for legacy but I wonder how
much of it is still out there? Any chance of splitting it out?
*ducks* knowing that someone is going to unleash the CMF's unbeatable
"custom" skin argument. ;-)
> But my view on what makes sense for Zope 2 might always be biased as I
Which is what the discussion is for and thanks for getting it stared.
Clark Consulting & Research
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -