[Zope-CMF] [dev] 'add' actions and views - a proposal

Wichert Akkerman wichert at wiggy.net
Sun Sep 21 10:59:49 EDT 2008

Previously Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Hi Yuppie,
> >>> 1.) CMF add views adapt not only container and request, but also the 
> >>> type info object. This way the views can't be accessed directly and have 
> >>> self.fti available.
> >> This is quite interesting, and possibly necessary. However, it means 
> >> that CMF add views are not just "views" and will need to be registered 
> >> differently to other views (i.e. you can't just use <browser:page /> 
> >> which also means that you won't get the Five security treatment etc).
> > 
> > Yes. This causes more problems than it solves. I think I found a much 
> > better solution:
> > 
> > CMF add views are registered for a special layer called IAddViewLayer. 
> > Like any other layer, IAddViewLayer extends IBrowserRequest. And it 
> > defines an additional 'ti' attribute for the request.
> > 
> > Like before views can't be accessed directly and have self.ti available. 
> > (I now use 'ti' instead of 'fti' because we have other type info 
> > implementations than FactoryTypeInformation.)
> I'm not sure I like this much more. It involves adding a marker 
> interface to the request conditionally during traversal. You'll possibly 
> run into funny sequence dependent conditions if you want to customise 
> the add view for a particular "theme" browser layer.
> My preference would be:
>   - Define an interface IFTIAwareView that has an 'fti' property
>   - Define a traversal view (@@add) that does this kind of thing on 
> traversal:

Why not a ++add++ traverser? Aren't traversed supposed to be used for
that kind of thing? Or does a view gives us something here that a
traverser doesn't?


Wichert Akkerman <wichert at wiggy.net>    It is simple to make things.
http://www.wiggy.net/                   It is hard to make things simple.

More information about the Zope-CMF mailing list