On 20.04.2006, at 18:56, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:


I've long been thinking about how to make <browser:page /> simpler and
less magical. Some radical ideas weren't received well and I couldn't
convince even myself 100% that they were the way to go. Other
brainstormings were dead ends.

I therefore call this proposal a compromise. It simplifies, but it
shouldn't annoy (Tres...). Note that I'm specifically only addressing
<browser:page />, not <browser:view />; nor am I coming up with a
framework for dealing with forms and their handlers (Jeff...).

'Nuff said. Your turn :)


In the Proposal you say:

"Why is this a problem? Because certain behaviour is mixed into the class created on-the-fly. This behaviour is not apparent in our view class, yet we assume it exists. It's magic."

For me this is not a reason to change/add directives. This just results in more work for keeping track with the zope3 releases in client-projects. It is ok to improve things, but this is no improvement for end users IMHO. This reminds me of the deprecation of the vocabulary directive, which is also just a burden for end users (i've missed that discussion).

"""Browser "pages" are essentially just adapters to the Component Architecture. Implementation details (template or not, etc.) should not be of much interest during the registration."""

I don't think that the template is an implementation detail. IMHO For a high level user the adapters are an implementation detail.

Regards, Bernd

Zope3-dev mailing list
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/zope- mailinglist%40mopa.at

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

Reply via email to