Roger Ineichen wrote:
>>> 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.

Yes, caching is one of my main motivations here.  The unique URL / different
URL caching problem is one that viewlets have as well, AFAICT.

One big plus that you're leaving out is the reusability, just like with
viewlets.  In fact, I believe that with my approach, I have most of the
benefits that zope.viewlets have.  And I in many cases I can get away with
registrations that are more intuitive to work with than the quadruple
adapters + managers that viewlets use.

>> 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?

Sure, I agree that this a good thing.  However, I thought that there must be
better arguments for using viewlets than the traversable / not traversable one.


Zope3-users mailing list

Reply via email to