[Zope-CMF] Re: [dev] five_template slots

[yuppie]

Hi Lennart!


Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On 3/26/06, yuppie <y.2006_-E2EsyBC0hj3+aS/vkh9bjw at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> This is the latest revision from the CMF 1.6 branch:
>> http://svn.zope.org/CMF/branches/1.6/CMFDefault/browser/five_template.pt?rev=40122
>>
>> It is shipped with CPS 3.4 and was never changed since the initial
>> checkin. None of your changes are used in CPS 3.4.
> 
> Then I do not know what "my changes" are.
> 
>>> No, because it didn't work, which is why I replaced it.
>> Wrong.
>>
>> You are using the old CMF five_template in CPS 3.4.
> 
> I'm getting extremely annoyed by your attitude here, when you are not
> prepared to explain what the problems are, what changes was made and
> when, but evidently want to blame them on me, but aren't listening to
> what I'm saying.

I'm listening, but not everything you say makes sense to me. And I don't 
want to blame anybody for that change. I just want to understand why the 
new five_template is better than the old one. And if it is not better, 
revert the change before the final release.

> I suggest you clearly describe exactly what you think is the problem,
> and make a suggestion to fix that, without any claims that anything
> has been broken by anyone, unless you can point out the exact checkin
> that the breakage happened and explain exactly why it is broken.

These two checkins
http://svn.zope.org/CMF/trunk/CMFDefault/skin/?rev=38594&view=rev
http://svn.zope.org/CMF/trunk/CMFDefault/skin/?rev=38595&view=rev
replaced the five_template for CMF 2.0 and trunk.

In my last mail I added links to the two versions before and after that 
change:
http://svn.zope.org/CMF/branches/1.6/CMFDefault/browser/five_template.pt?rev=40122
http://svn.zope.org/CMF/trunk/CMFDefault/skin/five_template.pt?rev=38594

That change contained two parts:

1.) Mapping 'style_slot' to 'css_slot' instead of 'style_slot'. You 
agreed in http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2006-March/024221.html 
that this was a bug and I fixed it yesterday.

2.) Adding two slots 'base' and 'header'. AFAICS these are CMF specific 
slots. If I did get you right you agree that providing CMF specific 
slots is not a good idea and CPS 3.4 / CalZope don't use these slots.


This second part did not 'break' anything, but it encourages people to 
use CMF specific slots in views. So if we agree that providing CMF 
specific slots is no improvement I propose to remove them.


Peace!

	Yuppie