Florent Guillaume wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 6/18/06, Philipp von Weitershausen <philipp@weitershausen.de> wrote:
The remaining important question is: if a *default* view is specified using the zope 3 mechanism, should we always treat it as a zope 3 view, and refuse to lookup an attribute with that name? Yep. browser:defaultView should only affect the view machinery. OK, that means that the test in Five.browser.tests.test_defaultview lin 94 iw wrong, as it explicitly tests that they CAN be attributes. ;)
This tests whether an existing ``index_html`` method is still supported and called:
>>> print http(r''' ... GET /test_folder_1_/testindex HTTP/1.1 ... ''') HTTP/1.1 200 OK ... Default index_html called
From Five.browser.tests.defaultview.zcml:
<browser:defaultView for="Products.Five.tests.testing.simplecontent.IIndexSimpleContent" name="index_html" />
If you want to have non-views as browser default, we still need to use __browser_default__, then.
Hmm, perhaps browser:defaultView isn't such a bad idea then... :). Actually, I don't have much of an opinion, to be honest. I just thought that it would make sense that browser:defaultView only modified the behaviour of Zope 3 views. The fact that it also modifies the behaviour of the general traversal machinery in Zope 2 sounds like a blessing if we get to avoid __browser_default__ this way; if it turns out to be a curse for other people, then perhaps we need a five:defaultPublishedName or something...
+1 on an alternative spelling, like five:defaultPublishedName or even five:defaultView if that's not too error-prone.
Yeah, but does anyone really need it? I was just thinking out loud above. Perhaps I shouldn't have :) Philipp