Previously Martin Aspeli wrote: > Hi Yuppie, > > >>> 1.) CMF add views adapt not only container and request, but also the > >>> type info object. This way the views can't be accessed directly and have > >>> self.fti available. > >> This is quite interesting, and possibly necessary. However, it means > >> that CMF add views are not just "views" and will need to be registered > >> differently to other views (i.e. you can't just use <browser:page /> > >> which also means that you won't get the Five security treatment etc). > > > > Yes. This causes more problems than it solves. I think I found a much > > better solution: > > > > CMF add views are registered for a special layer called IAddViewLayer. > > Like any other layer, IAddViewLayer extends IBrowserRequest. And it > > defines an additional 'ti' attribute for the request. > > > > Like before views can't be accessed directly and have self.ti available. > > (I now use 'ti' instead of 'fti' because we have other type info > > implementations than FactoryTypeInformation.) > > I'm not sure I like this much more. It involves adding a marker > interface to the request conditionally during traversal. You'll possibly > run into funny sequence dependent conditions if you want to customise > the add view for a particular "theme" browser layer. > > My preference would be: > > - Define an interface IFTIAwareView that has an 'fti' property > - Define a traversal view (@@add) that does this kind of thing on > traversal:
Why not a ++add++ traverser? Aren't traversed supposed to be used for that kind of thing? Or does a view gives us something here that a traverser doesn't? Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. _______________________________________________ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
