Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Zope: CMF

Site syndication form

 

 

Zope cmf RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


charlie.clark at clark-consulting

Sep 29, 2010, 9:54 AM

Post #1 of 8 (1338 views)
Permalink
Site syndication form

Hi,

I've added a for site syndication settings which I propose to use to
replace the existing properties tab of the Syndication Tool. Is it okay to
do this and register action for the view directly on the default profile
and not just for the views_support extension? That would be my preference.

Looking at the implementation of the Syndication Tool it looks like the
Syndication Infos should probably be adapters for IContentish with
relevant methods on the Syndication Tool can use but which should get
deprecation notices. Thoughts?


Charlie

PS. I'd also appreciate feedback on my tests for the view. I think I've
finally come up with a reasonable way to test formlib (and presumably
other form libraries) views fully with only unittests and would like to
factor out some of the utility classes into an appropriate model. Could
this be Products.CMFDefault/browser/test/utils.py?
--
Charlie Clark
Managing Director
Clark Consulting & Research
German Office
Helmholtzstr. 20
Düsseldorf
D- 40215
Tel: +49-211-600-3657
Mobile: +49-178-782-6226
_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF [at] zope
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests


tseaver at palladion

Sep 29, 2010, 10:04 AM

Post #2 of 8 (1270 views)
Permalink
Re: Site syndication form [In reply to]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 09/29/2010 12:54 PM, Charlie Clark wrote:

> I've added a for site syndication settings which I propose to use to
> replace the existing properties tab of the Syndication Tool. Is it okay to
> do this and register action for the view directly on the default profile
> and not just for the views_support extension? That would be my preference.

You need to supply more context here: I'm not sure what you are asking.

> Looking at the implementation of the Syndication Tool it looks like the
> Syndication Infos should probably be adapters for IContentish with
> relevant methods on the Syndication Tool can use but which should get
> deprecation notices. Thoughts?

They aren't adapters in the classic sense: they are intended to support
per-location policy chhanges, not per-type policies. It is pretty weird
that they don't expose any declared schema, but their job is to sit
inside a folder and govern the syndication settings for it and any
subobjects (recursively) which don't have their own info.



Tres.
- --
===================================================================
Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver [at] palladion
Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkyjcYwACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ6UYwCbBQ9wpDTJaFysJJqjkhhknfEJ
BYMAn0j4Yfh6NddlAI5M+D+rSv8TLnH2
=Yv7R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF [at] zope
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests


charlie.clark at clark-consulting

Sep 29, 2010, 10:16 AM

Post #3 of 8 (1270 views)
Permalink
Re: Site syndication form [In reply to]

Am 29.09.2010, 19:04 Uhr, schrieb Tres Seaver <tseaver [at] palladion>:

>> I've added a for site syndication settings which I propose to use to
>> replace the existing properties tab of the Syndication Tool. Is it okay
>> to
>> do this and register action for the view directly on the default profile
>> and not just for the views_support extension? That would be my
>> preference.
> You need to supply more context here: I'm not sure what you are asking.

I've added (but not committed) an action to the globals category which is
tied to this view, ie. the URL expression is
${portal_url}/@@syndication.html
There is no equivalent PythonScript + Template combination for this I
don't propose on writing one. Thus, far all browser views have been
implementations of existing (TTW) code.

>> Looking at the implementation of the Syndication Tool it looks like the
>> Syndication Infos should probably be adapters for IContentish with
>> relevant methods on the Syndication Tool can use but which should get
>> deprecation notices. Thoughts?

> They aren't adapters in the classic sense: they are intended to support
> per-location policy chhanges, not per-type policies. It is pretty weird
> that they don't expose any declared schema, but their job is to sit
> inside a folder and govern the syndication settings for it and any
> subobjects (recursively) which don't have their own info.

Thanks for the clarification but that doesn't make them candidates for
adapters of IFolderish? I just found it confusing that editProperties acts
on the Syndication Tool but enableSyndication acts on object. But maybe
it's more important to provide the missing functionality such as the
policies and reports.

Charlie
--
Charlie Clark
Managing Director
Clark Consulting & Research
German Office
Helmholtzstr. 20
Düsseldorf
D- 40215
Tel: +49-211-600-3657
Mobile: +49-178-782-6226
_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF [at] zope
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests


tseaver at palladion

Sep 29, 2010, 12:55 PM

Post #4 of 8 (1274 views)
Permalink
Re: Site syndication form [In reply to]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 09/29/2010 01:16 PM, Charlie Clark wrote:
> Am 29.09.2010, 19:04 Uhr, schrieb Tres Seaver <tseaver [at] palladion>:
>
>>> I've added a for site syndication settings which I propose to use to
>>> replace the existing properties tab of the Syndication Tool. Is it okay
>>> to
>>> do this and register action for the view directly on the default profile
>>> and not just for the views_support extension? That would be my
>>> preference.
>> You need to supply more context here: I'm not sure what you are asking.
>
> I've added (but not committed) an action to the globals category which is
> tied to this view, ie. the URL expression is
> ${portal_url}/@@syndication.html
> There is no equivalent PythonScript + Template combination for this I
> don't propose on writing one. Thus, far all browser views have been
> implementations of existing (TTW) code.

The tool has properties which represent site-wide defaults for the
interval, etc. I don't really care about making those editable in the
"front side" of the tapestry (the CMF UI) rather than the "back side"
(the ZMI).

>>> Looking at the implementation of the Syndication Tool it looks like the
>>> Syndication Infos should probably be adapters for IContentish with
>>> relevant methods on the Syndication Tool can use but which should get
>>> deprecation notices. Thoughts?
>
>> They aren't adapters in the classic sense: they are intended to support
>> per-location policy chhanges, not per-type policies. It is pretty weird
>> that they don't expose any declared schema, but their job is to sit
>> inside a folder and govern the syndication settings for it and any
>> subobjects (recursively) which don't have their own info.
>
> Thanks for the clarification but that doesn't make them candidates for
> adapters of IFolderish? I just found it confusing that editProperties acts
> on the Syndication Tool but enableSyndication acts on object. But maybe
> it's more important to provide the missing functionality such as the
> policies and reports.

There is no interface to which one could look up an adapter to find such
a policy: you would potentially need separate marker interfaces, and
duplicate registrations, for every folder in your site. The syndication
info objects are *data*, not *code*: the represent setttings in a
place. The tool uses them to figure out values for the syn:-namespace
elements in the RSS.


Tres,
- --
===================================================================
Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver [at] palladion
Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkyjma4ACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ5cSwCfWJ2zdqBW+pXx7PDjM4elICs1
nKoAoIbfrRFb3WKvSMLw7qRdIMAimYXj
=pI+t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF [at] zope
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests


charlie.clark at clark-consulting

Sep 29, 2010, 3:08 PM

Post #5 of 8 (1270 views)
Permalink
Re: Site syndication form [In reply to]

Am 29.09.2010, 21:55 Uhr, schrieb Tres Seaver <tseaver [at] palladion>:

> The tool has properties which represent site-wide defaults for the
> interval, etc. I don't really care about making those editable in the
> "front side" of the tapestry (the CMF UI) rather than the "back side"
> (the ZMI).

My view on this is that site managers shouldn't have to "drop down" into
the ZMI to manage relevant site settings. See the discussion regarding
portal properties - ideally they shouldn't have to switch between a
skinned view and the ZMI for anything that is site relevant. A side effect
of this might be, at some point in the far future, no more DTML to look
after. However, I've just found the corresponding PythonScript (the action
is object/syndication) so I will just be changing the extension profile
after all. I suggest that object syndication and site syndication should
be two distinct actions.

>> Thanks for the clarification but that doesn't make them candidates for
>> adapters of IFolderish? I just found it confusing that editProperties
>> acts
>> on the Syndication Tool but enableSyndication acts on object. But maybe
>> it's more important to provide the missing functionality such as the
>> policies and reports.
> There is no interface to which one could look up an adapter to find such
> a policy: you would potentially need separate marker interfaces, and
> duplicate registrations, for every folder in your site. The syndication
> info objects are *data*, not *code*: the represent setttings in a
> place. The tool uses them to figure out values for the syn:-namespace
> elements in the RSS.

I think we must be talking at cross purposes here. It sounds to me like
SyndicationInfo is like an Annotations adapter for a folder. Whether the
information is stored as an "opaque" (this may be the wrong term) object
in the folder or using an Annotations adapter seems moot (English sense)
to me and, therefore, not important right now.

Charlie
--
Charlie Clark
Managing Director
Clark Consulting & Research
German Office
Helmholtzstr. 20
Düsseldorf
D- 40215
Tel: +49-211-600-3657
Mobile: +49-178-782-6226
_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF [at] zope
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests


charlie.clark at clark-consulting

Sep 30, 2010, 2:54 PM

Post #6 of 8 (1262 views)
Permalink
Re: Site syndication form [In reply to]

Am 30.09.2010, 00:08 Uhr, schrieb Charlie Clark
<charlie.clark [at] clark-consulting>:

> My view on this is that site managers shouldn't have to "drop down" into
> the ZMI to manage relevant site settings. See the discussion regarding
> portal properties - ideally they shouldn't have to switch between a
> skinned view and the ZMI for anything that is site relevant. A side
> effect
> of this might be, at some point in the far future, no more DTML to look
> after. However, I've just found the corresponding PythonScript (the
> action
> is object/syndication) so I will just be changing the extension profile
> after all. I suggest that object syndication and site syndication should
> be two distinct actions.

Okay, now I understand the difference between the two forms:

* portal_syndication/propertiesForm is for the site;
* synPropertiesForm is for a folder

I propose to add Site Syndication Settings to the actions/global and
remove the Properties form from the SyndicationTool. I also think that
synPropertiesForm should be moved to actions/folder and the condition
"folder is object" removed. Oh, and I notice the RSS schema is way out of
date! This is probably the most important thing of all.

Syndication policies can probably be best handled by a Syndication
Settings form. The ZMI tab will be removed as will the Syndication Reports
tab which I don't intend to implement. That's what log files are for.

Any objections?

Charlie
--
Charlie Clark
Managing Director
Clark Consulting & Research
German Office
Helmholtzstr. 20
Düsseldorf
D- 40215
Tel: +49-211-600-3657
Mobile: +49-178-782-6226
_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF [at] zope
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests


jens at dataflake

Sep 30, 2010, 11:25 PM

Post #7 of 8 (1247 views)
Permalink
Re: Site syndication form [In reply to]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 9/30/10 23:54 , Charlie Clark wrote:
> I propose to add Site Syndication Settings to the actions/global and
> remove the Properties form from the SyndicationTool. I also think that
> synPropertiesForm should be moved to actions/folder and the condition
> "folder is object" removed. Oh, and I notice the RSS schema is way out of
> date! This is probably the most important thing of all.
>
> Syndication policies can probably be best handled by a Syndication
> Settings form. The ZMI tab will be removed as will the Syndication Reports
> tab which I don't intend to implement. That's what log files are for.
>
> Any objections?

Not from me.

jens

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)

iEYEARECAAYFAkylft0ACgkQRAx5nvEhZLJIqgCgnVO/p5QF2WNQYb0/zsXq9pkA
6PIAn1IrMP7MuaMi5kjmZjzNS8l32en4
=i2HX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF [at] zope
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests


charlie.clark at clark-consulting

Oct 1, 2010, 12:35 AM

Post #8 of 8 (1244 views)
Permalink
Re: Site syndication form [In reply to]

Am 30.09.2010, 00:08 Uhr, schrieb Charlie Clark
<charlie.clark [at] clark-consulting>:

> I think we must be talking at cross purposes here. It sounds to me like
> SyndicationInfo is like an Annotations adapter for a folder. Whether the
> information is stored as an "opaque" (this may be the wrong term) object
> in the folder or using an Annotations adapter seems moot (English sense)
> to me and, therefore, not important right now.

And to answer my own question on this as well - IAnnotatable would require
another dependency for CMF, plus: what you should be annotatable? OTOH As
IAnnotatable is effectively just a marker interface I don't see any
particular problems with doing the same as we do with Workflow and store
the information in a _syndication dictionary and restricting the
adaptation to IFolderish.

Charlie
--
Charlie Clark
Managing Director
Clark Consulting & Research
German Office
Helmholtzstr. 20
Düsseldorf
D- 40215
Tel: +49-211-600-3657
Mobile: +49-178-782-6226
_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF [at] zope
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

Zope cmf RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.