[Grok-dev] Chameleon and five.grok

[Hanno Schlichting]

Hi :)

Sylvain Viollon wrote:
> Le Mon, 25 May 2009 12:23:37 +0200,
> Hanno Schlichting <hannosch at hannosch.eu> a écrit :
>> That won't work very well in Plone, since "*.cpt" are Controller Page
>> Templates from CMFFormController.
> 
>   I don't think it's an issue since you don't put your templates in a
>   CMF DirectoryView, so unless you have a product which uses it
>   (DirectoryView) and grok all the product (not only the part where you
>   define your views) you won't have any problems.

Right, those probably don't conflict.

>   But people using Grok are going to use formlib/z3cforms to
>   implement their forms and not CMFFormController (I think).

Well, until they want to use Plone and Grok or some add-on which still
uses CMFFormController, but that shouldn't matter.

>> For Chameleon we decided to use the standard extensions and have it
>> replace the default engine. Since it's only an engine change and not
>> actually a change of the template language, I don't see why these
>> templates should have a different extension. Running both
>> zope.pagetemplate and chameleon.zpt in the same instance seems like a
>> non-usecase to me.
> 
>   This work if you plan to have fast-templates for your
>   view/skins/layout (like a collective.skinny like skin), and you can
>   keep Plone using old template types.
> 
>   However, you can't use zope.pagetemplate macros in chameleon, so you
>   have to be innovative if you need to do it. But in that case I won't
>   use chameleon if you just plan to do *old code style* with just the
>   plan of using chameleon because it's all cool and new (it's not a
>   valid excuse).

I'm not sure I follow here. Chameleon is by now as feature rich as zpt
itself including macros in all their variations. It's a drop-in
replacement and not a subset.

If you want to have more speed, I see no reason why you should only do
that for a subset of the templates or add-ons.

Hanno