[Zope3-dev] RFC: Simplify Skinning Redux

[Dominik Huber]

Steve Alexander wrote:

>Who will use these interfaces?  In what parts of the code will they be
>present?
>
>I think these marker interfaces are used only in infrastructure code to
>do with setting up layers and skins.  In this case, they will not be
>typed often, and will not even be read often.  So, I think it is more
>important that the name be clear than the name be short, so that it can
>be understood quickly upon reading it.
>  
>
As I mentioned,  the dotted name already provides some semantics. IMO 
zope.app.publisher.browser.ISkinType does explicitly means that such a 
type is used for browser applications, otherwise it should be not  
within the browser package (unwritten convention).

>>want your layer interface to show up for TTW view registration, you'll need ILayerType so
>>that it shows up in the "Browser Layers" vocabulary and thus among the list of selectable
>>layer interfaces.
>>    
>>
>I strongly support this being an optional feature; a price you pay only
>if you care about TTW stuff.
>  
>
Me too.

>>That said, I still think that in the long term, local registration should not be done TTW.
>>So this optional notion of ILayerType might not be necessary in the future after all. For
>>filesystem-based development I don't find any compelling usage for it at all.
>>    
>>
>Me too.
>
I'm not a TTW-fan at all, but IMO it is important that such a framework 
supports potential use cases as long we don't get unacceptable 
drawbacks. I'm really not interested in the never-ending file versus ttw 
development debate ;)

Regards,
Dominik
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: dominik.huber.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 154 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope3-dev/attachments/20051213/dfe90c8c/dominik.huber.vcf