Re: Proposal, free views

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On 9/23/07, Roger Ineichen <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Heads up,
>>
>> Please review this proposal.
> 
> OK. I have to admit that I don't fully understand it.
> 
>> This proposal describes a way to make the usage of such built in views optional.
> 
> "Such built in views" means what? "Optional" how? And why?
> 
> "The additional component.zcml could be used to include only component
> related configuration whitout the view parts defined in the
> browser.zcml. Because the browser.zcml get's included from the
> configure.zcml but not from the component.zcml"
> 
> OK, I understand what you want to do: Start the practice of having
> views in one zcml and components in another, so you can include only
> the component one if so desired. I don't understand why, though.
> 
> "Right now it's not possible to use another layout pattern without to
> support zmi_views and zmi_action and it's menut item pattern. The
> views defined in all packages also require the use-macro, fill-slot
> pattern which is not what we allways whant. Right now there is no
> option to get rid of this patterns except to duplicate packages and
> replace existing views."
> 
> That's what you will have to do anyway. Because if you don't include
> the views, you will have to replace them in another package. And you
> can override them in another package already...

You can override, but you can't "subtract" them.  Breaking the
configurations out into separate pieces allows finer-grained reuse.


Tres.
- --
===================================================================
Tres Seaver          +1 540-429-0999          [email protected]
Palladion Software   "Excellence by Design"    http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG9/Za+gerLs4ltQ4RAvMHAJ9ebBqY5zjdlYv7NC9kbGPSibhlfQCgjfd+
hosY5niF+q/+4lviLOytw3E=
=RO+H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----