Re: skin support for xmlrpc

On 27.08.2007, at 22:11, Christian Theune wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Am Freitag, den 24.08.2007, 07:55 +0200 schrieb Jodok Batlogg:
>> hi christian,
>>
>> it seems like your recent changes to support skins in xmlrpc views
>> introduced some troubles.
>> we spent several hours to debug not working xmlrpc views and finally
>> found that nailing the zope.traversing egg to 3.4.x resolved the
>> troubles.
>>
>> while looking at your changes we were wondering why you want to
>> support skins in xmlrpc views? for me, a xmlrpc call is a remote
>> procedure call and has to do nothing with skins. it's not yellow,
>> pink or orange and has no templates associated. can you explain your
>> use-case for this?
>
> Let me try to wrap some of the things up here.
>
> When we drafted this change, we followed the idea of the  
> refactoring for
> skins as they are now (switching from a separate skin/layer
> implementation to the current marker interfaces on requests) which was
> very technically focused. So were we.
>
> I see that we're misusing the ++skin++ traversal namespace and should
> introduce another namespace instead. Our mistake.
>
> We introduced the change as we thought it to be straightforward and a
> logical extension. As stated above we overlooked the simple  
> solution of
> another traverser. We did not anticipate it to be such a strong  
> problem
> otherwise we'd created a separate proposal instead of just going
> forward.
>
> Zagy posted a reply to your question for a use case on that thread in
> the checkins list [1] but unfortunately that thread died off with this
> message and nobody returned to it.
>
> Let me propose a change:
>
> 1. We revert the change.
>
> 2. We create a new traverser with a different namespace that  
> implements
>   our intended behaviour.
>
> Two options after that:
>
> 3a. We supply this traverser by default, or
>
> 3b. We ship it in a separate package.
>
> I do have the feeling that differentiating
> the XML/RPC-API based on specifics of the request are of value (it
> certainly is for us) as are skins.

perfectly fine. i prefer the separate package :)

jodok

>
> If we can decide to ship a new traversal namespace for zope.publisher
> then we'd be happy to do that. Otherwise we'll just go on with a
> separate package. Hooray for the CA.
>
> Christian
>
>
> [1] ... http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/checkins/2007-August/ 
> 012638.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Zope3-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/batlogg.lists% 
> 40lovelysystems.com
>

--
"Simple is better than complex."
   -- The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters

Jodok Batlogg, Lovely Systems
Schmelzhütterstraße 26a, 6850 Dornbirn, Austria
phone: +43 5572 908060, fax: +43 5572 908060-77