On 11/16/2011 02:06 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 11/16/2011 07:28 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:53, Charlie Clark <charlie.clark@clark-consulting.eu> wrote:
Am 16.11.2011, 12:49 Uhr, schrieb Lennart Regebro <regebro@gmail.com>:
Right. Could we standardize on skins or browserlayers plz? Having both confuses the heck out of me.
Definitely a topic that needs (re)-opening. From a CMF point of I think we're just about at the point where we could switch to browser layers, well, at least once CMF 2.3 has been released. But I think that CMF Skins still offer some functionality that you don't get with browser layers out of the box.
When I said skins I meant ++skins++. CMF Skins must die.
Note that for all their warts, they are *massively* more successful than the Z3 reimplementation, which was overengineered (I helped with that, I'm sure). In particular, the exceesive amount of ZCA majyk makes complicaterd uses of the Z3 skins very fragile (easy to misconfigure, hard to discover what you broke).
But they also have their merits. If I could make a wish, I'd like to see a shared implementation that marries all the benefits. :) Something I love a lot is the ++skin++ traverser for example. I also like the idea of "tagging" the Request object with structured information (an interface) to indicate specialisation. I hate that I have to spell the layer in each ZCML statement. Just my 0.02, Christian -- Christian Theune · ct@gocept.com gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 0 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting, development, hosting, operations