[Zope3-dev] skin support for xmlrpc

[Christian Theune]

Hi,

Am Freitag, den 24.08.2007, 07:55 +0200 schrieb Jodok Batlogg:
> hi christian,
> 
> it seems like your recent changes to support skins in xmlrpc views  
> introduced some troubles.
> we spent several hours to debug not working xmlrpc views and finally  
> found that nailing the zope.traversing egg to 3.4.x resolved the  
> troubles.
> 
> while looking at your changes we were wondering why you want to  
> support skins in xmlrpc views? for me, a xmlrpc call is a remote  
> procedure call and has to do nothing with skins. it's not yellow,  
> pink or orange and has no templates associated. can you explain your  
> use-case for this?

Let me try to wrap some of the things up here.

When we drafted this change, we followed the idea of the refactoring for
skins as they are now (switching from a separate skin/layer
implementation to the current marker interfaces on requests) which was
very technically focused. So were we.

I see that we're misusing the ++skin++ traversal namespace and should
introduce another namespace instead. Our mistake.

We introduced the change as we thought it to be straightforward and a
logical extension. As stated above we overlooked the simple solution of
another traverser. We did not anticipate it to be such a strong problem
otherwise we'd created a separate proposal instead of just going
forward.

Zagy posted a reply to your question for a use case on that thread in
the checkins list [1] but unfortunately that thread died off with this
message and nobody returned to it.

Let me propose a change:

1. We revert the change.

2. We create a new traverser with a different namespace that implements
  our intended behaviour.

Two options after that:

3a. We supply this traverser by default, or

3b. We ship it in a separate package. 

I do have the feeling that differentiating
the XML/RPC-API based on specifics of the request are of value (it
certainly is for us) as are skins.

If we can decide to ship a new traversal namespace for zope.publisher
then we'd be happy to do that. Otherwise we'll just go on with a
separate package. Hooray for the CA.

Christian


[1] ... http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/checkins/2007-August/012638.html