[Zope3-dev] Re: Boring product for Zope 3

[Morten W. Petersen]

Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:

> Hi Morten,
>
> thanks for this "boring product".


You're welcome.  Good thing it didn't bore you too much.  :)

>> I'd like to announce the first boring product for Zope 3, a
>> simple product meant to illustrate how 'packages' can be
>> developed in Zope 3:
>>
>>  http://www.nidelven-it.no/products/zope3_boring/
>>
>> Comments and feedback are as always appreciated :)
>
>
> I have a few comments indeed:
>
> 1. We are trying to discourage the term "product" the way it was used 
> in Zope2. In Zope2, there was a clear understanding of what a 
> "product" is -- something that lives in the Products directory. Zope3 
> doesn't have such a directory anymore; Zope3 works with any python 
> packages, whether they are Zope specific or not. So, maybe you'd like 
> to rename your "boring product" to "boring package", "boring 
> application", "boring add-on" or whatever suits you.


OK.

> 2. You seem to be writing a content class that can be added to normal 
> content space. For content interface, we typically use schema fields 
> to describe their data, not so much methods, e.g.:
>
>   from zope.interface import Interface
>   from zope.schema import TextLine
>
>   class IBoring(Interface):
>
>       title = TextLine(
>           title=u"Title",
>           description=u"Boring title",
>           required=True
>           )
>
> With this, Zope can then automatically render add/edit forms (using 
> the browser:addform / browser:editform directives) for you. Using this 
> simplified way of writing content types should probably be more 
> attractive to beginners than implementing multiple interfaces and 
> methods.


Yeah, Stephan Ricther mentioned this on IRC, I'll be using schemas
and tests in the next version of boring.

> Also, you might want to declare that IBoring is a content type 
> interface, i.e. that it describes a content type, not some other type 
> of object. You do that in ZCML with:
>
>  <interface
>       interface=".interfaces.IBoring"
>       type="zope.app.content.interfaces.IContentType"
>       />


OK.

> 3. It would cool if you could adhere to some of the Zope3 coding 
> styles. We usually write classes in CamelCase, thus I would name the 
> boring class Boring and the edit view BoringEditView.


OK.

> 4. If you have a 'browser' package, then the 'boring_edit_view' class 
> (or 'BoringEditView' rather), the boring.png icon and all browser:* 
> ZCML directives should also move to that package. Otherwise it doesn't 
> make sense to have it in the first place.


Would anything else than what you've listed have
to be changed to make this work?

> Note that there's an extensive tutorial written by Jim Fulton that 
> introduces a 'boring' content type (a "Contact"). In 9 steps of the 
> tutorial, you learn everything from writing an interface to writing 
> browser views with ZPT for a class. You might want to look at that. 
> I'm not sure if it's in subversion yet, so I just point you to the CVS 
> resource:
>
> http://cvs.zope.org/Docs/ZopeComponentArchitecture/PythonProgrammerTutorial/Chapter1/ 
>


Yup, Chris McDonough told me about this one.

-Morten