On Dec 14, 2007 1:50 AM, Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Malthe Borch wrote: > > If this belongs in Plone, then it's pretty much ready for inclusion. > > > > http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/216 > > I do quite like this approach. I think it brings back some of the > "convention over configuration" we've been moving away from.
> Does this conflict in any way with CacheFu? I say that because IIRC it > monkey patches pt_render() and IIRC so does CacheFu. Not a criticism, > just something to watch out for. By the looks of it it wraps the pt_render that's there. As long as CacheFu does the same thing, they can co-exist just fine. Only when one or the other discards the original method and replaces it completely do we have a problem, but only if the ordering is out. */me checks*. At a quick glance CacheSetup does store the old method for calling, but only calls it when caching is disabled. In other words, it wraps the pt_render it finds there, but ignores it when caching is enabled. Could the PLIP address this and make sure it's patch is not going to get botched by CacheFu? Pre-emptively import CacheFu's patches would already work around this, for example. > My only concern would be whether this ties us into an implementation > that we could want to solve differently in the future, e.g. using named > template adapters. Again, not a criticism, it just needs to be thought > through. I don't see any reason why the two approaches can't compliment each other. -- Martijn Pieters _______________________________________________ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
