[Zope-CMF] Re: [dev] newstyle content creation

[yuppie]

Hi Charlie!


Charlie Clark wrote:
> 
> Am 25.04.2008 um 09:23 schrieb yuppie:
> 
>> I simplified the code in ContentAddFormBase.create and moved it to the 
>> add view. 'finishCreate' no longer exists, your add view has to 
>> implement the complete 'create' method. Formlib raises an 
>> NotImplementedError if 'create' is missing.
>>
>> This requires a few more lines of code in add views for real 
>> IDynamicType content. If you hardcode factory and portal_type in the 
>> view, the code becomes much simpler. And if the __init__ method of 
>> your content type handles unicode and datetime correctly, 'create' can 
>> be a single line.
> 
> Agreed. The first five lines are generic and should probably be in 
> ContentAddFormBase leaving just the adapter stuff to be implemented by 
> the view itself which is what is was before! _create would be more in 
> keeping with other formlib methods such as handle_success calling 
> _handle_success.

Did some more refactoring. If your factory can handle all the input, 
ContentAddFormBase's 'create' method should be sufficient. If not, you 
need a 'create' method like the one in FileAddView.

>>> It's taken me such a while to get my head around the 
>>> ProxyFieldProperty stuff that I've made all my new content stuff work 
>>> without it but I can see you've used it elegantly.
>>
>> You should not use that stuff if you don't need it. Schema adapters 
>> and ProxyFieldProperty are just legacy code for old content types.
> 
> I know. But I didn't know at the time and boy did it make me think that 
> things were going to be harder than they needed! I had to take some time 
> out at the time and curse the nameless people who hadn't written the 
> dummies guide to this! Still, it wasn't a bad idea making me think more 
> about this stuff.

Sorry. Added a small explanation in the module docstring.

> Regarding naming: I suppose the easiest thing is to add an "id" field to 
> the add form for none file objects.

That's an option if you don't want automatically generated IDs. My 
question was how to integrate oldstyle factories that don't have an add 
form into an add menu.

> It would be nice to have a "require 
> once" in the schema value for things like upload fields so that the same 
> schema can be used for adding and editing.

In my own code I use some modified widgets that support 
self.widgets['foo'].required=True to override required=False of the field.

> This does, of course, beg the question: when we've moved everything to 
> browser_views do we start thinking about moving the default classes to 
> zope.app based stuff? Or do we still depend too heavily on the Zope2 
> security declarations and other stuff?

First priority for existing content classes is backwards compatibility. 
I prefer to keep them as they are and to use adapters to make them work 
with Zope3 style code.

>>> I also understand what you mean about making a menu for this stuff. 
>>> It would be nice to have some configuration for this so that we don't 
>>> have to rely on actions such as AddFile, AddImage, etc. Would that be 
>>> something like listing all views that provide a specific interface?
>>
>> No. The view registrations don't provide enough information and I'd 
>> like to keep this configurable TTW.
>>
>> We can look up the addable types in the types tool as folder_factories 
>> and Plone do. But in that case we need a way to get the URL of the add 
>> view.
> 
> 
> The lookup is pretty much what I do at the moment. I can't think of an 
> easy way of doing this apart from convention which is pretty much what 
> you suggest with "addFile". I suppose the next thing would be to add 
> support for the '+' syntax and addMenuItem directive?

The IAdding view ('+' syntax) and Zope 3 menus are special code for the 
  Zope 3 app ZMI. I don't plan to add support for that.


Cheers,

	Yuppie