Steve Alexander wrote:

Who will use these interfaces?  In what parts of the code will they be
present?

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.
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).

want your layer interface to show up for TTW view registration, you'll need 
ILayerType so
that it shows up in the "Browser Layers" vocabulary and thus among the list of 
selectable
layer interfaces.
I strongly support this being an optional feature; a price you pay only
if you care about TTW stuff.
Me too.

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.
Me too.

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 ;)

Regards,
Dominik
begin:vcard
fn:Dominik Huber
n:Huber;Dominik
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
tel;work:++41 56 534 77 30
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
version:2.1
end:vcard

_______________________________________________
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to