> Behalf Of Gary Poster
> Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 9:49 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Content Providers and Viewlets
> Hi Stephan (and Roger :-).
> I have read the contentprovider README and skimmed the
> viewlet README
> so far.
> viewlets look like a clever pattern. I can see that they can be
> applied to many use cases; I'll have to think about them to see how
> much I like the application compared to others we have used, but I
> have a generally favorable impression so far.
> contentproviders are a subset of the viewlet pattern,
> obviously. But
> when do you think one might build contentproviders and not
> Do you have concrete use cases (or even current uses) for
> this division?
The content provider package offers just the API for collecting
additional content. This pattern can be used directly in python
or in page templates.
There is no reason that we have to use a viewlet implementation for
this. The content provider package offers also a TALES directive
called "providers". This is only the way can use content provider
directly in TAL.
Since a viewlet depends only on the page template implementation,
there is no reason to merge this two packages together. The viewlet
package provides only a standard implementation where we use in
relation to the page template concept.
Since I use another template language (expermimental), I see no
need for the viewlet package. This was my main reason for spliting
the content provider and viewlet part in two packages.
Let's say the content provider package offers the concept and the
viewlet package offers a implementation which depends on page
> The most important part of my reply, though, is that I hope we can
> agree to share an even lower-level interface than contentproviders.
> If we do, it will address my remaining concerns (expressed below).
I will take a look at your Readme next week ...
> Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev mailing list