|
osdir.com mailing list archive |
|
Subject: Re: Using Zope2 page templates with Five - msg#00014List: web.zope.z3base.fiveWho is Silvio? Ha! Sidnei, of course. My fingers must have slipped. Sorry about that Sidnei. :) For Zope 3 forward compatibility it'd be better to use the Zope 3 engine. The ZPT engines are very similar, but there are some differences. Then again, for Zope 2 backward compatibility the Zope 2 page template engine is better. It depends on what weighs more strongly with Five.. Which in turn depends on if you need to integrate with Zope2 templates. You mean a configuration knob for a particular page template declaration? I'm not sure whether we want to provide this kind of option. I think it's better to pick one and go with it for now, unless we have strong reasons to want both options. I think we should go with the Zope2 templates in that case. The forward compatibility issues should be minor. A discussion on whether this is a good path forward or not would be good. I'm certainly much more happy with this possibility. That's my input. :) Thanks! -- Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo http://www.nuxeo.com/ CPS Content Management http://www.cps-project.org/ Thread at a glance:
Previous Message by Date: click to view message previewRe: Using Zope2 page templates with FiveLennart Regebro wrote: Thanks to Dieters TrustedExecutable modules, I was able to replace the Zope3 page template files in five with trusted Zope2 page template files. This has several benefits: 1. Suddenly, i18n works! Horray! 2. We no longer need the pagesFromDirectory statement. Cool! Silvio suggested this before, he told me, and that this was said not to be a good idea. Q1. Could somebody explain why it's not a good idea? Who is Silvio? For Zope 3 forward compatibility it'd be better to use the Zope 3 engine. The ZPT engines are very similar, but there are some differences. Then again, for Zope 2 backward compatibility the Zope 2 page template engine is better. It depends on what weighs more strongly with Five.. He also suggested that it could be made a runtime ZCML statement which type of template you want the page statement to create. I agree with this, but I don't know how to make that type of configuration statement. You mean a configuration knob for a particular page template declaration? I'm not sure whether we want to provide this kind of option. I think it's better to pick one and go with it for now, unless we have strong reasons to want both options. Q2. Could somebody point me to a statement that does something similar? Then I can RTFC and do this. A discussion on whether this is a good path forward or not would be good. I'm certainly much more happy with this possibility. That's my input. :) Regards, Martijn Next Message by Date: click to view message previewRe: Using Zope2 page templates with FiveLennart Regebro wrote: You mean a configuration knob for a particular page template declaration? I'm not sure whether we want to provide this kind of option. I think it's better to pick one and go with it for now, unless we have strong reasons to want both options. I think we should go with the Zope2 templates in that case. The forward compatibility issues should be minor. I certainly would like to have Zope 3 ZPTs in Five, as would probably others. If people really have the use case of needing Zope 2 ZPTs, how about the following: <browser:page> and all the configuration directives known from Zope 3 make regular Zope 3 ZPT pages, while <five:page> and corresponding directives make Zope 2 ZPT pages. Or, maybe in a more intuitive manner, <zope2:page>? Philipp Previous Message by Thread: click to view message previewRe: Using Zope2 page templates with FiveLennart Regebro wrote: Thanks to Dieters TrustedExecutable modules, I was able to replace the Zope3 page template files in five with trusted Zope2 page template files. This has several benefits: 1. Suddenly, i18n works! Horray! 2. We no longer need the pagesFromDirectory statement. Cool! Silvio suggested this before, he told me, and that this was said not to be a good idea. Q1. Could somebody explain why it's not a good idea? Who is Silvio? For Zope 3 forward compatibility it'd be better to use the Zope 3 engine. The ZPT engines are very similar, but there are some differences. Then again, for Zope 2 backward compatibility the Zope 2 page template engine is better. It depends on what weighs more strongly with Five.. He also suggested that it could be made a runtime ZCML statement which type of template you want the page statement to create. I agree with this, but I don't know how to make that type of configuration statement. You mean a configuration knob for a particular page template declaration? I'm not sure whether we want to provide this kind of option. I think it's better to pick one and go with it for now, unless we have strong reasons to want both options. Q2. Could somebody point me to a statement that does something similar? Then I can RTFC and do this. A discussion on whether this is a good path forward or not would be good. I'm certainly much more happy with this possibility. That's my input. :) Regards, Martijn Next Message by Thread: click to view message previewRe: Using Zope2 page templates with FiveLennart Regebro wrote: You mean a configuration knob for a particular page template declaration? I'm not sure whether we want to provide this kind of option. I think it's better to pick one and go with it for now, unless we have strong reasons to want both options. I think we should go with the Zope2 templates in that case. The forward compatibility issues should be minor. I certainly would like to have Zope 3 ZPTs in Five, as would probably others. If people really have the use case of needing Zope 2 ZPTs, how about the following: <browser:page> and all the configuration directives known from Zope 3 make regular Zope 3 ZPT pages, while <five:page> and corresponding directives make Zope 2 ZPT pages. Or, maybe in a more intuitive manner, <zope2:page>? Philipp Loading Comments...
|
|
