[Product-Developers] Re: Experiences with commenting solutions
usenet at diefenba.ch
Fri Jul 4 06:18:21 UTC 2008
Martin Aspeli <optilude at gmx.net> wrote:
> Andreas Jung-5 wrote:
> > I can only say that iqpp.p.c works like a charm. The only thing I am
> > missing is that it does respect the "allow comments" setting within the
> > Types control panel.
> It's working well for us now as well.
> There are a couple of things about iqpp.plone.commenting that I think
> warrants fixing if people are still working on it. None are very big,
I'm going to do that.
> A minor niggle is that the fields in the custom templates don't use
> class="field" on their divs, making them look funny. :) Another is that the
> ICommentingOptions adapter seems to create annotations on the fly in
> __init__() (i.e. when it's adapted) which is pretty bad since it could lead
> to write-on-read situations. Oh, and it installs an action called "options"
> that is available even on types where the view it links to are not. Using
> the schema extender on ICommentable would be better.
I never used schema extender yet so I'm not really sure what you mean.
Do you mean to use schema extender to add the options field into the
schema of the ICommentable rather than use a own form available via an
> Not respecting the FTI option and registering a blanket adapter on for
> BaseContent is the biggest problem, though. This means that you get comments
> on things that aren't really content and there's no per-type setting. I
> fixed it with an override adapter like this:
> I think it's a bit annoying that these things are using string-based option
> checking, but oh well. All in all, the product is very good.
What would be the better approach? Defining constants in config.py and
iqplusplus - http://iqpp.de
EasyShop - http://www.geteasyshop.com
More information about the Product-Developers