http://dev.plone.org/plone/changeset/14760 I can't see why this test would fail. The portlet calendar has the class "portlet" in addition to "portletCalendar". In fact, I fixed this a while back in: http://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/6438 (I just checked with Firebug on a current SVN checkout, the "portlet" class does indeed show up in the markup of the standard calendar) -- -- Alexander Limi · http://limi.net
Hi, Any chance we could re-tag beta2 with the one checkin that Wichert did to fix the user search? http://dev.plone.org/plone/changeset/14790 Since user search is broken, people can't test sharing page, groups, the new Contributor/Editor/Viewer roles or anything else that requires you to find a user. Which excludes a lot of new functionality that really needs to be tested a bit. -- -- Alexander Limi · http://limi.net
Alexander Limi wrote: > Hi, > > Any chance we could re-tag beta2 with the one checkin that Wichert did to > fix the user search? > > http://dev.plone.org/plone/changeset/14790 > > Since user search is broken, people can't test sharing page, groups, the > new Contributor/Editor/Viewer roles or anything else that requires you to > find a user. Which excludes a lot of new functionality that really needs > to be tested a bit. +1, but I'm not able to do it right now. Martin
Disclaimer: This mail has been sitting around in my email inbox for a while, and I wanted to answer without sounding rude, so I had to let it cool down for a while. Bear with me, hopefully I won't ruffle any feathers. It's a bit sharp, but not intended as anything else than matching the tone of the original. ;) On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:20:22 -0700, whit morriss <d.w.morriss@...> wrote: > the argument that we are now using the zmi by design really rings hollow > for me. Though I strongly support generalizes ui that works with or > without plone, I'm not sure designing in any more context switches into > plone is at all a good idea. Let's keep people in the application or on > filesystem, not rummaging though our hot nineties legacy layer. There's a very large amount of settings that fit perfectly well in the middle category, explained below. And your ad hominem (well, on Zope 2 ;) attacks make you come across as not arguing the case, but arguing for taste. Which I'm fine with, just don't present it as something that it's not. :) The reason why this mail pisses me off slightly is that it (rightly or wrongly) assumes that the current work done by Hanno and all the others helping out at the sprint in Baarn doesn't change anything. There's a *major* difference between 2.5 — which has a limited set of configuration switches exposed — and 3.0, which took a step back and identified pretty much *all* the common questions from the lists and the FAQs we get and made these settings available in the Plone control panel. These panels are not arbitrarily chosen, they are carefully selected and(Continue reading)
Alexander Limi wrote: > Moving the Collection (nee Smart Folder) control panel into the ZMI is an > easy operation, makes sense (as it's equivalent to the portal_types UI, > just used less), and removes the last control panel that isn't immediately > understandable from the Plone side. > > If you need to change the name of an index representation, that's not a > common enough task for me to defend it from being in the main control > panel. It's something that you're likely to change once (if ever), and > then never touch it again. Sounds like a "secondary settings" panel to me. I *really* don't want to get into a food fight on this list, so let's trim appropriately and get back to the issue at hand. I would agree that the current Collections control panel sticks out like a sore thumb and induces a large amount of "huh" in the users I've observed trying to use it, in light of the other control panels we now have in Plone 3 (which really is a whole other ball-game than what we have in 2.x). I don't think we'll radically improve this in time for 3.0. I don't think we'll radically improve it ever, because fundamentally the abstractions it affords are very low level. Ultimately, it requires a pretty deep understanding of catalogs and indexes and criteria to make any sense to anyone. We wouldn't put the portal_catalog UI in the Plone control panel either. So, +1 for making this a link from somewhere in the ZMI. atct_tool maybe? It's a stop-gap measure, maybe we need a more clearly defined "advanced"(Continue reading)
On Wed, 16 May 2007 12:33:50 -0700, Martin Aspeli <optilude@...> wrote: > I would agree that the current Collections control panel sticks out like > a sore thumb and induces a large amount of "huh" in the users I've > observed trying to use it, in light of the other control panels we now > have in Plone 3 (which really is a whole other ball-game than what we > have in 2.x). Indeed. > I don't think we'll radically improve this in time for 3.0. I don't > think we'll radically improve it ever, because fundamentally the > abstractions it affords are very low level. Ultimately, it requires a > pretty deep understanding of catalogs and indexes and criteria to make > any sense to anyone. We wouldn't put the portal_catalog UI in the Plone > control panel either. > > So, +1 for making this a link from somewhere in the ZMI. atct_tool maybe? Yup, I believe that was what Alec was suggesting when I spoke to him about it earlier. > It's a stop-gap measure, maybe we need a more clearly defined "advanced" > options that's more in-Plone. But whatever, we don't need to solve that > right now and the ZMI largely (possibly badly) serves that function > already. I kind of doubt many people are using this control panel right > now anyway, or that it will be missed by those not happy to go into the > ZMI. If it has more general bits I'm not remembering, we should move > those to a more friendly control panel.(Continue reading)
Hi guys,
David, Florian and I were discussing the skinning story in Plone 3.
David was a bit frustrated trying to customize things like the portal
logo in a clean way. We made some headway, but discovered that it wasn't
very easy to make use of Zope 3 browser layers in Plone.
For those not familiar with them, browser layers are markers which are
applied to the request during traversal. You can register views,
viewlets etc for a particular layer marker, either to override a view
for a particular skin/theme, or to make sure a particular viewlet is
only shown in a particular skin/theme.
For example:
<browser:viewlet
name="my.viewlet"
for="*"
layer=".interfaces.IMyTheme"
manager="plone.app.layout.viewlets.interfaces.IAboveContent"
template="myviewlet.pt"
permission="zope2.View"
/>
This will only show up if the IMyTheme skin/browser layer is applied.
The most obvious way for this to would be for IMyTheme to correspond to
a particular theme/skin as selected in portal_skins.
That's where plone.theme comes in. It provides an event handler
(Continue reading)
Martin Aspeli wrote: > Hi guys, > > David, Florian and I were discussing the skinning story in Plone 3. > David was a bit frustrated trying to customize things like the portal > logo in a clean way. We made some headway, but discovered that it > wasn't very easy to make use of Zope 3 browser layers in Plone. > > For those not familiar with them, browser layers are markers which are > applied to the request during traversal. You can register views, > viewlets etc for a particular layer marker, either to override a view > for a particular skin/theme, or to make sure a particular viewlet is > only shown in a particular skin/theme. > > For example: > > <browser:viewlet > name="my.viewlet" > for="*" > layer=".interfaces.IMyTheme" > manager="plone.app.layout.viewlets.interfaces.IAboveContent" > template="myviewlet.pt" > permission="zope2.View" > /> > > This will only show up if the IMyTheme skin/browser layer is applied. > > The most obvious way for this to would be for IMyTheme to correspond > to a particular theme/skin as selected in portal_skins. >(Continue reading)
On 21.05.2007, at 23:57, Martin Aspeli wrote: > whit wrote: > >> I would say this point you are at wiggy's mercy. FWIW: i like this feature a lot and would be very pleased with its inclusion in 3.0 final. judging from my own frustration that i've had so far with five based views 'messing up' skin layers they were not intended for i think any possible integration issues will well be paid for by the amount of frustration we will spare plone integrators (and the number of requests for help on plone-users!) > > Me too :) > > He tends to like things with tests, though. ;) > > Martin > > > _______________________________________________ > Framework-Team mailing list > Framework-Team@... > http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team >(Continue reading)
RSS Feed5 | |
|---|---|
20 | |
4 | |
4 | |
10 | |
10 | |
21 | |
27 | |
17 | |
7 | |
1 | |
4 | |
7 | |
6 | |
13 | |
4 | |
7 | |
4 | |
18 | |
1 | |
24 | |
4 | |
17 | |
16 | |
8 | |
1 | |
18 | |
26 | |
22 | |
20 | |
14 | |
34 | |
57 | |
112 | |
21 | |
16 | |
30 | |
5 | |
75 | |
34 | |
5 | |
3 | |
34 | |
70 | |
82 | |
50 | |
103 | |
129 | |
29 | |
67 | |
69 | |
122 | |
124 | |
73 | |
179 | |
73 | |
38 | |
12 | |
12 | |
12 | |
5 | |
11 | |
251 | |
93 | |
253 | |
51 | |
2 | |
3 | |
5 | |
24 | |
18 | |
11 | |
50 | |
131 | |
70 | |
67 | |
134 | |
61 | |
82 | |
168 | |
59 | |
50 | |
5 | |
42 | |
40 | |
36 | |
31 | |
12 | |
16 |
