> Cc: zope3-dev zope3-dev
> Betreff: [Zope3-dev] skin support for xmlrpc
> hi christian,
> it seems like your recent changes to support skins in xmlrpc 
> views introduced some troubles.
> we spent several hours to debug not working xmlrpc views and 
> finally found that nailing the zope.traversing egg to 3.4.x 
> resolved the troubles.
> while looking at your changes we were wondering why you want 
> to support skins in xmlrpc views? for me, a xmlrpc call is a 
> remote procedure call and has to do nothing with skins. it's 
> not yellow, pink or orange and has no templates associated. 
> can you explain your use-case for this?

Jodok, a skin e.g. a layer in a view, even XML-RPC is a security
thing not a layout thing. Every traversable adapter needs it's 
own posibility to register security for it. This is only 
possible if we have the request available in the discriminator.

It's also needed if you setup tow different projects on one server
and like to register a XML-RPC view for e.g. ISite in one project
and not for the ISite in the other project. If this both sites
using a own layer, it's possible ot register the XML-RPC view only 
for one project.

The other option doing this wihtout having a layer in the XML-RPC
directive is to use the baseregistry.

But why does this break soemthing? Was the initial request interface
the BrowserRequest and now it uses by default the IDefaultBrowserLayer?
This whould be bad. Using the IBrowserRequest as default layer whould be
the best choice. It whouldn't break anything and allows to register
views only with your specific request/interface.

Roger Ineichen

> thanks
> jodok
> --
> "Explicit is better than implicit."
>    -- The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters
> Jodok Batlogg, Lovely Systems
> Schmelzhütterstraße 26a, 6850 Dornbirn, Austria
> phone: +43 5572 908060, fax: +43 5572 908060-77

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

Reply via email to