On 11/16/2011 02:06 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On 11/16/2011 07:28 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:53, Charlie Clark
>> <charlie.cl...@clark-consulting.eu> wrote:
>>> Am 16.11.2011, 12:49 Uhr, schrieb Lennart Regebro
>>>> Right. Could we standardize on skins or browserlayers plz? Having
>>>> both confuses the heck out of me.
>>> Definitely a topic that needs (re)-opening. From a CMF point of I
>>> think we're just about at the point where we could switch to browser
>>> layers, well, at least once CMF 2.3 has been released. But I think
>>> that CMF Skins still offer some functionality that you don't get
>>> with browser layers out of the box.
>> When I said skins I meant ++skins++. CMF Skins must die.
> Note that for all their warts, they are *massively* more successful than
> the Z3 reimplementation, which was overengineered (I helped with that,
> I'm sure). In particular, the exceesive amount of ZCA majyk makes
> complicaterd uses of the Z3 skins very fragile (easy to misconfigure,
> hard to discover what you broke).
But they also have their merits. If I could make a wish, I'd like to see
a shared implementation that marries all the benefits. :)
Something I love a lot is the ++skin++ traverser for example. I also
like the idea of "tagging" the Request object with structured
information (an interface) to indicate specialisation.
I hate that I have to spell the layer in each ZCML statement.
Just my 0.02,
Christian Theune · c...@gocept.com
gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany
http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 0 · fax +49 345 1229889 1
Zope and Plone consulting, development, hosting, operations
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -