[Zope-dev] zope.publisher

[Roger Ineichen]

Hi Martijn

> Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] zope.publisher
> 
> Roger Ineichen wrote:
> 
> > Does grok need to register this new adapter somewhere?
> > If the adapter configuration is missing the default skin 
> apply pattern 
> > will break.
> 
> As long as zope.publisher's configure.zcml does it, Grok will 
> load that up. Grok isn't different in that respect; it only 
> uses Grok-style registration in packages that explicitly use 
> grok or grokcore.* libraries.
> 
> It's quite possible Grok can start using some of your changes 
> for its REST skin implementation (which do apply to 
> IBrowserRequest), though I'm not 100% sure.

of corse, all changes are 100% compatible.

The changes allow you to inherit from IHTTPRequest instead of
IBrowserRequest and support a IDefaultSkin. The previous implementation
required that the default skin pattern uses an IBrowserRequest.

REST does normaly depend on IBrowserRequest but JSON-RPC doesn't
have to, or you will get all the IBrwoserRequest parts in JSON-RPC
too which is not good.

Also XML-RPC has to be inherited from IHTTPRequest and not how
it is right now from IBrowserRequest. XML-RPC should also allow
to use it's own default skin and not depend on the IBrowserRequest
default skin implementation. e.g. we do really not need a contents.html
page in XML-RPC skins. But that's another (security) topic which we
can discuss at a later time.

> I'm trying to understand why the default default skin cannot 
> be registered as an interface, instead of the introduction of 
> an adapter. 
> Is this because defaultSkin can only be used for IBrowserRequest?

Because it's not an adapter. It's doens't provide what it
should provide and is registered for.

The following will end in a TypeError:

>>> request  BrowserRequest()
>>> defautlSkin = IDefaultskin(request)
TypeError ...

but it should return: IDefaultBrowserLayer

Another side effect is that we get pickled interfaces in
the adapter registry. That really hurts if someone does
the same in a local (persistent) adapter registry and the
interface get removed.

The question is, should we allow to register such *junk* in 
the zope adapter registry?

> I think you need to update the upgrade notes in zope3docs too 
> to point out this change. If there is anything people should 
> change to their code, you need to explain how to find what 
> needs to be changed and what change to make. You need to at 
> least warn them that something big changed if they get 
> problems with their skins and point them to zope.publisher's 
> changelog.

will do so soon

> I'll also note that this is *not* a minor bugfix release of 
> zope.publisher, so it should be 3.6 not 3.5.7. Also don't use 'dev' 
> markers in CHANGES.txt; only in setup.py.

agreed

Regards
Roger Ineichen

> Regards,
> 
> Martijn
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev at zope.org
> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
> **  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  ** (Related lists -  
> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
>  http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
>