Add actions chapter.

2 files changed, 41 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/docs/tutorials/cmf/actions.rst b/docs/tutorials/cmf/actions.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..7e66f3236
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/tutorials/cmf/actions.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+.. _actions_chapter:
+
+=======
+Actions
+=======
+
+In CMF, the "actions tool" along with "action providers" create an
+extensible mechanism to show links in the CMF management UI that
+invoke a particular behavior or which show a particular template.
+
+:mod:`repoze.bfg` itself has no such concept, and no package provides
+a direct replacement.  Actions are such a generic concept that it's
+simple to reimplement action-like navigation in a different way within
+any given application.  For example, a module-scope global dictionary
+which has keys that are action names, and values which are tuples of
+(permission, link).  Take that concept and expand on it, and you'll
+have some passable actions tool replacement within a single application.
+
+The `repoze.bfg.viewgroup
+<http://svn.repoze.org/repoze.bfg.viewgroup/trunk/>` package provides
+some functionality for creating "view groups".  Each view in a
+viewgroup can provide some snippet of HTML (e.g. a single "tab"), and
+views (tabs) which cannot be displayed to the user due to the user's
+lack of permissions will be omitted from the group.
+
diff --git a/docs/tutorials/cmf/index.rst b/docs/tutorials/cmf/index.rst
index fd393e3b0..b9e837a21 100644
--- a/docs/tutorials/cmf/index.rst
+++ b/docs/tutorials/cmf/index.rst
@@ -7,12 +7,26 @@ The Zope `Content Management Framework
 websites.  It's reasonably easy to convert a modern Zope/CMF
 application to :mod:`repoze.bfg`.
 
+The main difference between CMF and :mod:`repoze.bfg` is that
+:mod:`repoze.bfg` does not advertise itself as a system into which you
+can plug arbitrary "packages" that extend a system-supplied management
+user interface.  For those sorts of high-extensibility,
+highly-regularized-UI systems, CMF is still the better choice.
+
+:mod:`repoze.bfg` (and other more lightweight systems) are often a
+better choice when you're building the a user interface from scratch,
+which often happens when the paradigms of the system-provided user
+interface don't match the requirements of an application very closely.
+Despite the mismatch, a good number of developers tend to use CMF even
+when the UI requirements aren't a very good fit, because it happens to
+provide other helpful services, such as types and skins; this tutorial
+is for those sorts of developers.
+
 Missing:
 
    templates.rst
    forms.rst
    workflow.rst
-   actions.rst
    membership.rst
    discussions.rst
    syndication.rst
@@ -24,5 +38,6 @@ Missing:
    content.rst
    catalog.rst
    skins.rst
+   actions.rst