[Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: The browser:page compromise
dev at projekt01.ch
dev at projekt01.ch
Sat Apr 22 07:52:46 EDT 2006
Hi Philipp
> > See also my (a little old) proposal at:
> >
> http://www.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Projects/ComponentArchitecture/Simpl
> > ifyMacroRegistration
> >
> > Note: the proposal is a little bit old and I whould change the
> > directive browser:macros and make explicit use of a python factory
> > rather then use a implicit mixin class.
> >
> > What do you think Philipp?
>
> This isn't part of the discussion about this proposal.
>
> Just to be clear:
>
> * Having to register macros as pages when they're not meant
> to be publishable sucks.
>
> * @@standard_macros sucks a bit too (too much indirection).
> It sure confuses people (like Tonico, as he says himself).
>
> * I'd rather not invent a new ZCML directive nor a new TALES
> expression type (I don't like this about viewlets and
> contentproviders).
>
> I could imagine a new traversal namespace:
> <metal:macro use-macro="context/++macro++page" />
>
> Here, 'page' is an adapter from (context, request) (it's a
> view) to IMacro or something. It will also be registered as
> such (as a <view /> or just an <adapter />).
>
> I think viewlets and contentproviders should have taken the
> same road and used traversal namespaces. That's what they're for :).
I don't think so.
ITALESExpression are built for this use case.
My context doesn't need to have a ++macro++ namespace!
My context doesn't know about macros and viewlets. Macros or viewlets
depend on context and request. This is the reason why we implemented a
lookup via tales expression and not a traversal namespace on our context.
> If we shall discuss this any further, I suggest we move into
> a separate thread.
Yup
> Philipp
>
More information about the Zope3-dev
mailing list