-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Chris McDonough wrote:
On Mar 13, 2006, at 1:22 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
On Mar 13, 2006, at 1:06 PM, yuppie wrote:
I'm not concerned about my own app code. I know the problem and how to fix it.
And I'm not concerned about people like you who monkeypatch that code. You know that monkeypatching is always on your own risk and you know how to modify your monkey patch even if more code is changed than 'bad_id'.
I'm concerned about the people we encourage to use Five technology. Views are a major feature of Five. Should we warn people not to use views? Or instruct them how to patch Zope 2 to protect views against being masked by content IDs?
IMO, we should fix it "right" and live with the status quo until we do (which is that content ids can shadow views). I don't think it's worth it to hack it in the meantime. It just doesn't seem like that much of an emergency, IMO.
Also, FWIW, it just occurs to me that even though I do use Five, I've never generated a "@@" URL. It appears purely optional to use the "@@" syntax in the URL to call a view. Most of the examples I've seen out there don't use it either.
Views for containers which want to disambiguate view lookup from item traversal should use '@@view.html'. Non-containers don't have the ambiguity, and hence don't need the hint. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 tseaver@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEFhV/+gerLs4ltQ4RAhF6AKDcCXyazrcccA5BUlyLvZzXBxSiIACfQxK9 DVxm3NYHFNh21CDB23pae8g= =nyId -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----