Steve Alexander wrote:
As I mentioned, the dotted name already provides some semantics. IMO
zope.app.publisher.browser.ISkinType does explicitly means that such a
type is used for browser applications, otherwise it should be not
within the browser package (unwritten convention).
Who will use these interfaces? In what parts of the code will they be
I think these marker interfaces are used only in infrastructure code to
do with setting up layers and skins. In this case, they will not be
typed often, and will not even be read often. So, I think it is more
important that the name be clear than the name be short, so that it can
be understood quickly upon reading it.
want your layer interface to show up for TTW view registration, you'll need
that it shows up in the "Browser Layers" vocabulary and thus among the list of
I strongly support this being an optional feature; a price you pay only
if you care about TTW stuff.
I'm not a TTW-fan at all, but IMO it is important that such a framework
supports potential use cases as long we don't get unacceptable
drawbacks. I'm really not interested in the never-ending file versus ttw
development debate ;)
That said, I still think that in the long term, local registration should not
be done TTW.
So this optional notion of ILayerType might not be necessary in the future
after all. For
filesystem-based development I don't find any compelling usage for it at all.
tel;work:++41 56 534 77 30
Zope3-dev mailing list