[Zope3-dev] Re: Views on Views ;-)

[Chris Withers]

Jim Fulton wrote:
> 
> You say what the page names will be. The page names don't have to be the same
> as the method names. If two people pick the same names, the conflict will be
> caught when the configuration file is processed.  This is no different than
> if people picked the same view name, which is exactly what's happening.

Ah, OK, it appears I'm missing some information/funcionality that's arrived
since I last had a chance to look at Zope 3...

> It's all there as far as I can tell. If the view and content namespaces don't
> overlap, you don't need namespace qualification.

The "don't overlap" bit was missing ;-)

> > Hmm... this strikes me as sucking somewhat :-(
> >
> > For starters, having files called pdf.pdf is about as useful as having a file called
> > 'download'.
> 
> <shrug>

Hmmm...

> > Secondly, saying that the :: bit isn't important 'cos you'll never use it on containers
> > isn't true, certainly in some of the usecases I can think of :-S
> 
> I said you don't need :: on non-containers. I'd say this is true. What use
> cases would dictate ::?

Having a view on a container that returned a downloadable file, from the use
case we discussed before:

acl_users/view::xls.xls

then there'd also be the normal html view, and probable an editing form + method
view as well...

Am I missing something here?

> > > http://dev.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Projects/ComponentArchitecture/NameExtensionViews
> > >
> > Even if the majority don't go for this method of URL traversal, will it still be possible
> > for me to easily plug it in when I start using Zope 3?
> 
> Of course.

Great :-) Then there's no problem for me other than having to do a bit more work
to get what I want..

cheers,

Chris