On Monday 12 December 2005 16:29, Dominik Huber wrote: > 1. The brand *skin* and *layer* are fairly common and they are > reflecting two logical uses cases. At a first glance the usage for a > layer type is not given, but the layer concept is still interesting to > build modular skins. The layer audience could be the developers which > like to share layer specific informations. IMO an use case for an > Browser Layer Names utility could be a corresponding > online-documentation within the api-doc. I would suggest to register the > layers like skins using a ILayerBrowserType interface: > > <interface > interface=".interfaces.I18NFeatures" > type="zope.publisher.interfaces.browser.IBrowserLayerType" > /> > > > 2. I liked the naming ISkinType and ILayerType much more (instead of > IBrowserSkinType/ IBrowserLayerType), because this browser-specific > differentiation is already given by the package hierarchy and those > ILongCamelCaseWordingsThatTriesToExplainEverything are hard to type and > at the end they confuse newcomers even more than the simple ones. Please > keep the naming also simple and stupid like the skinning simplification > itself :) Two good points I agree with. I wanted to write a similar response as 1., but did not have a good argument. Dominik just gave it. I think it is important to keep a registry of all layers, especially for TTW development, an area I really want to put some effort in for 3.3.
Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training _______________________________________________ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3firstname.lastname@example.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com