On Wed, 2012-01-25 at 10:37 +0100, Charlie Clark wrote:
> Am 24.01.2012, 18:48 Uhr, schrieb Jan-Carel Brand <li...@opkode.com>:
> > I've clarified some of the docstrings and added the missing one.
> > None have doctests, perhaps you are referring to fromDict, which gives
> > an example dict to show the required structure.
> > I guess that could easily be turned into a doctest, I'll look into it.
> No need to add doctests. It was more a comment on the docstring of one
> method in comparison with the others.
> >> It would be nice to expand the README here.
> > I don't see anything about vocabs there at all, but I'm willing to add
> > some tests.
> er, just because the existing documentation is pants doesn't mean it can't
> be improved upon! ;-)
> I'm still not sure about having TreeVocabulary in zope.schema if it is
> only going to be used with, shudder, Archetypes.
It's *not* for use with Archetypes. :) That's what for example
Products.ATVocabularyManager is for.
I just mentioned that this is a fairly common use-case in Plone, but up
to now only with Archetypes, because a zope3-component type
TreeVocabulary didn't exist yet. That's why I wrote this one.
> On the one hand schema
> are theoretically dissociated from any form library and zope.form is
> already incomplete, on the other we try and avoid application-specific
> requirements in the libraries.
Sure. Like SimpleVocabulary, the Treevocabulary is not dependent on any
In my case, I use it with z3c.form, but it could also be used with for
example zope.formlib or any other form library that couples with
> All the more important to expand the
> documentation so that other libraries can benefit from the plumbing.
I'll see what I can do.
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -