[Zope3-dev] RFC: death to getView, getDefaultViewName, and getResource

[Jim Fulton]

Steve Alexander wrote:
> 
> Tres Seaver wrote:
> > On Wed, 2002-05-15 at 18:21, Gary Poster wrote:
> >
> >>I think I noticed absolute url was implemented as a view; I thought it was an
> >>odd choice, but is there a good reason for it to be a view?  If so, whatever
> >>the reason is might be an argument to keep the non-request version.
> >
> >
> > Unlike physical path, 'absolute_url' needs to be adjusted to correspond
> > to any virtual hosting which is in place;  hence, it depends on the
> > request, and is therefore a view.
> 
> I can't fault the reasoning.
> 
> However, I do not like the idea of having certain "magical" view names,
> such as url;view, which have particular meaning for core parts of Zope
> 3, and which should not naively be used as normal names for views on
> content.
> 
> What if I have a legitimate use for a view called "url" for my content?
> 
> Solutions that come to mind:
> 
>    * Ignore it (yagni)
> 
>    * Naming convention:  _url;view

Why don't we just use absolute_url.

>    * Different namespace: url;builtin_view

I *really* don't like this because the distinction between "builtin" 
and "not builtin" is neither crisp nor interesting for Zope 3.

Jim

--
Jim Fulton           mailto:jim@zope.com       Python Powered!        
CTO                  (888) 344-4332            http://www.python.org  
Zope Corporation     http://www.zope.com       http://www.zope.org