[z3-checkins] Re: r10172 - z3/Five/branch/regebro-standard_macros

[Lennart Regebro]

Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> Not sure when it got there, but I see StandardMacros in Five.browser

Yes. But there is no context/@@standard_macros (or whatever the exact 
spelling is).

>> Still, /page is only *one* standard macro. The other ones still do not 
>> exist. They are used by some widgets, for example the object widget, 
>> and I assume they are laos used bu other templates that do stuff like 
>> that.
> 
> Well, the 'page' macro should be provided by one's custom skin. 

Well, there are no custom skins in Five, which is one, but only one, of 
the problems.

> CMFonFive, for example, might want to provide this macro as a bridge 
> between a CMF skin and a Five skin, so that you use in Five-style 
> templates context/@@standard_macros/page and you get the CMF skin.

Yes, it will do this.

> Yes, there are few other macros which need to be mimicked, but that's a 
> minor detail and not part of this discussion.

No, that's the problem, and that's the major reason that patch is there.

> I haven't found one ZPT view in Zope 3 that uses StandardMacros as a 
> view class... I have no clue what you're talking about.

zope/app/forms/browser/macros.py

>> and StandardMacros is a new style class, and hence, these views are 
>> silently ignored by Five.
> 
> I can hardly imagine that. 

Even if you can't, as I have repeatedly stated, this is the case.

> If they are ignored by Five at all, it must be a different problem.

No. It's *explicitly* so.

 From browserconfigure.py:

     # new-style classes do not work with Five. As we want to import
     # packages from z3 directly, we ignore new-style classes for now.
     if type(class_) == type:
         return

> First of all, I wonder why you always suggest copying templates. Do the 
> templates need to be adjusted to work with Five? I don't think so, 
> Five's ZPT implementation and Z3's are compatible, right?

Yes, but they need to be specified with a full path. A path we don't have.

> Then you suggest re-registering them. What's actually WRONG with the way 
> they are registered now?

Because they are ignored since they use new-style view classes.

I'm sorry, I just don't have time to discuss this with you more today. 
This has to be the end of the discussion for now, and besides, I can't 
see  that I have done anything but repeat myself for a while now, so it 
doesn't seem to be really helping much.

Talk to you later.

-- 
Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo     http://www.nuxeo.com/
CPS Content Management     http://www.cps-project.org/