[Zope-dev] Re: default view

[Philipp von Weitershausen]

Florent Guillaume wrote:
> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
>> Lennart Regebro wrote:
>>> On 6/18/06, Philipp von Weitershausen <philipp at 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