[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > what I like to see is something like: > > <html metal:use-macro="macro:StandardMacros/page"> > > Such a macro could be lookuped by a ITALESExpression > called *macro* similar to the IContentProvider implementation. > > The *StandardMacros* could be a mapping registred as a python > factory. The *StandardMacros/page* knows how to lookup a > registred macro called *page* in the *StandardMacros*. > > See also my (a little old) proposal at: > http://www.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Projects/ComponentArchitecture/SimplifyMacroRegistration > > Note: the proposal is a little bit old and I whould > change the directive browser:macros and make explicit use of > a python factory rather then use a implicit mixin class. > > What do you think Philipp?
This isn't part of the discussion about this proposal. Just to be clear: * Having to register macros as pages when they're not meant to be publishable sucks. * @@standard_macros sucks a bit too (too much indirection). It sure confuses people (like Tonico, as he says himself). * I'd rather not invent a new ZCML directive nor a new TALES expression type (I don't like this about viewlets and contentproviders). I could imagine a new traversal namespace: <metal:macro use-macro="context/++macro++page" /> Here, 'page' is an adapter from (context, request) (it's a view) to IMacro or something. It will also be registered as such (as a <view /> or just an <adapter />). I think viewlets and contentproviders should have taken the same road and used traversal namespaces. That's what they're for :). If we shall discuss this any further, I suggest we move into a separate thread. Philipp _______________________________________________ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3firstname.lastname@example.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com