> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Daniel Nouri
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. Juli 2007 01:32
> An: email@example.com
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Betreff: [Zope3-Users] Re: AW: View or content provider
> Roger Ineichen wrote:
> >> I need very basic content providers to generate HTML
> contents from a
> >> set of classes, inside pages templates.
> >> Is there a huge difference between using views (and
> >> "context/@@viewname"
> >> syntax) and using content providers (with "provider:providername"
> >> syntax), mainly in terms of performances, CPU usage and/or memory
> >> usage ??
> >> Thanks for any advise for this simple "problem", as both
> methods work
> >> perfectly...
> > I do not recommend using views for content that is only
> used inside a
> > template. Because "context/@@viewname"
> > is also traversable as a real view and will probably show up in
> > google.
> How would it show up in Google? Google bots don't try
> arbitrary URLs, they follow links.
This could happen if you update a project and remove a public view
called detail.html and register a "inline" view with the same
name whihc you liek to use for calling in ZPT. Just kidding.
I know this doesn't happen in a project, but are you realy sure.
What's the benefit to register views and call them in ZPT
like tal:content="structure context/@@foo_bar" ?
For beeing fair,
one benfit is probably the usage of memcached. Such views allows
you to easy cache them self, because they are traversable by it's
own url. But be carfully, probably they should get cached just
once from a unique url and not on different urls used in each view.
> Using ordinary views for parts of a HTML page works perfectly for me.
Of corse it's possible to do that, but this doesn't mean it's a good
concept in every usecase.
My note on that topic should not say "don't use it", it should only make
people think about the options we have in z3 and point on some side effects?
> Zope3-users mailing list
Zope3-users mailing list