Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
my impression is that if you want TTW editing you'll have to do it
on an application level using what's available in the framework
(utilities, ZPT, ...) Zope3 allows you to do this already and in a
much cleaner way than with zope2..
That's great! How to make this work in the context of a Zope 2/CMF
setup, the one Martin is working in? Remember the legacy codebase
here; it's not an option to throw it out just like that.
through Five I guess :-)
So what in Zope 3 lets you do a TTW modification of views right now?
Where should Martin start looking?
I don't have the competence though or the exact vision on how to do
it. What I'm doing though as a matter of philosophy is to stick as
much as possible to standard Zope3 concepts (adapters, utilities,
ZCML, event subscribers, views, ...), to make the backporting from
zope3 to zope2 easier.
That's good. Of course Five is trying to port these concepts over to
Zope 2, but I myself wouldn't know how to build TTW modification of
Five views right now. What's the Zope 3 equivalent?
Note that I doubt Martin can buy into all of CPSSkins anytime soon.
They're looking into porting CMF-style skins into Zope 3-style views
using Five. He's worried that the ability for TTW modification of
views will be gone when Zope 3 style views are in use in Plone. So,
something is needed in Zope 3 with at least equivalent power to TTW
CMF skin customization to Zope 2, without having to rewrite all of the
Plone skins in anything more than a fairly mechanical way. Evolution
is the keyword here; a revolution is not affordable.
What I'm claiming is that is that TTW customization is valuable and that
Zope3 has to leverage this in a way or in another. What I question is
the idea of customizing "views". What CPSSkins does is that it allows
every resources to be customized TTW, but the view that does the final
composition is a standard filesystem view. This is why I'm saying that
Zope3 supports this already, provided you don't customize the view but
the resources used by the view. This may have been misleading to express
it that way, but the goals and the results are the same.
When looking at TTW possibilities I started with trying to emulate the
portal_skins filesystem directory view approach that is used in Zope2.
My conclusion was that only resources, or templates understood as
resources need to be customized, the actual view mechanism can stay on
the filesystem and it can call the resources instead.
can't just a view be created that calls resources (ZPT, etc)? why does
the entire view itself have to be customized TTW?
Zope3-dev mailing list