[Product-Developers] Re: Experiences with commenting solutions

Wichert Akkerman wichert at wiggy.net
Fri Jul 4 06:47:37 UTC 2008

Previously Kai Diefenbach wrote:
> Hi Martin, 
> 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.
> Great.
> > 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,
> > though.
> 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
> action?

Adding forms is rarely a good thing: it adds extra options to the normal
view page where there are already too many. With schemaextender it is
possible to add fields to the standard edit form which makes the user
interface more consistent and gives people a single place to make


Wichert Akkerman <wichert at wiggy.net>    It is simple to make things.
http://www.wiggy.net/                   It is hard to make things simple.

More information about the Product-Developers mailing list