[Cubicweb] About CubicWeb >= 3.7 (potential) refactorings

Aurélien Campeas aurelien.campeas at logilab.fr
Thu Feb 11 13:49:26 CET 2010


Le jeudi 11 février 2010 à 13:39 +0100, Sylvain Thénault a écrit :
>  
> > > Unify actions/box/components and maybe others 'type' of appobjects 
> > > (:eid:`468093`)
> > > ==================================================================================
> > > * drop the 'component' / 'contextual component' distinction
> > > 
> > > * in a perfect world, also unify with box, and one can display our new
> > >   "universal components" as a box, global / contextual component according
> > >   to context set in his cw properties
> > > 
> > > * allowing registration of an object in multiple registry
> > >   -> eg implements IAction and IView and get in the same class
> > >      the view and the action leading to the view
> > 
> > I don't get this. Can you explain a bit more ?
>  
> two main things in there:
> 
> * I would like to be able to register the same object in different registries
>   or with different selectors

can you give a concrete use case for this ?

> * I would like to uniformize what's currently in the boxes/contextnav/components
>   registries. One of the most noticeable effect would be great simplication
>   of user's preferences.

question: what's the true point behind the vregistry namespaces (views,
forms, components, etc.) ?

I've seen it as a perf. hack but I may be mistaken.

but +1 on boxes/contextnav/components simplification

> 
> still in the idea of making things simpler to grasp while more powerful.
>  
[...]

> > > Use lxml or similar to ease/improve xml/html generation 
> > > (:eid:`1218`, :eid:`577964`, :eid:`459771`)
> > > ===================================================================================================
> > > wide topic... The hotest point being its introduction in the cubicweb
> > > view system : we should be able to manipulate DOM trees while keeping
> > > backward compatibility with 'string' views.
> > > 
> > > Alain should provides some input soon about the pros & cons of lxml
> > > vs other libraries.
> > > 
> > 
> > For the record, I've built a small backwards-compatible lib to ease html
> > generation (https://www.logilab.net/cwo/project/cwtags). It is now used
> > mostly in private cubes, except cubicweb-document, and works well for us
> > (I think :)).
> > 
> > It does not tackle the pb. of autoescaping yet because I'm not sure how
> > to do that in a backward-compatible, sane and non-performance hurting
> > way. But it is planned somehow.
> 
> that's what the chetemele module I've posted some time ago does:
> an api inspired by cwtags w/ auto escaping.
> 

could you post this here or in some accessible place ?




More information about the Cubicweb mailing list