Mailing List Archive: Zope: CMF

[dev] CMF 2.2 plans?

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

hannosch at hannosch

Feb 28, 2009, 4:55 AM

Post #1 of 21 (1155 views)
Permalink

[dev] CMF 2.2 plans?

Hi.

Quoting a mail from Jens from September last year:

"Is there anything to hold back a CMF 2.2.0 beta at this point?"

I have one small todo item on my list regarding the changes to content
type icons.

Things I remember people working on:

- Formlib based views
- Add-views

http://www.zope.org/Products/CMF/docs/roadmap/view has a couple of
items, I'm not sure about.

Is there anything missing, people would like to have in a new version?

It should be no surprise, that I'd like to have official support for
Zope 2.12 for CMF 2.2 as well ;) Nightly tests are running fine for all
I can see. As Zope 2.12 is not likely to be released before Summer,
would that be a reasonable timeframe to aim for a CMF 2.2 final release
as well?

Hanno

P.S. I would appreciate some kind of first alpha or beta release
soonish, so we can start releasing Plone 4 preview releases based on this...

_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF[at]lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

charlie at begeistert

Feb 28, 2009, 6:18 AM

Post #2 of 21 (1123 views)
Permalink

Re: [dev] CMF 2.2 plans? [In reply to]

Am 28.02.2009 um 13:55 schrieb Hanno Schlichting:

> Hi.
>
> Quoting a mail from Jens from September last year:
>
> "Is there anything to hold back a CMF 2.2.0 beta at this point?"
>
> I have one small todo item on my list regarding the changes to content
> type icons.
>
> Things I remember people working on:
>
> - Formlib based views

Yuppie's already done most of them. Work on my my own folder_contents
replacement has been sporadic but is finally coming along and I hope
to finish it in March. Then I can work on my table-free replacement of
main_template.pt. Beyond that I'll try and work on form(lib) views for
some the rest of CMFDefault - the brackets because I think that beyond
2.2 a move to z3c.forms is should be seriously considered. Fortunately
the code z3c.forms code is close enough to formlib to make migration
fairly straightforward.

> - Add-views

Add to that Jens' CMFActionIcons folding into CMFDefault and
presumably Tres' "ursa" replacement for Globals.py and Yuppie's
workflow work.

> http://www.zope.org/Products/CMF/docs/roadmap/view has a couple of
> items, I'm not sure about.
>
> Is there anything missing, people would like to have in a new version?
>
> It should be no surprise, that I'd like to have official support for
> Zope 2.12 for CMF 2.2 as well ;) Nightly tests are running fine for
> all
> I can see. As Zope 2.12 is not likely to be released before Summer,
> would that be a reasonable timeframe to aim for a CMF 2.2 final
> release
> as well?

Seems reasonable to me although the Zope 2.12 support is more nice to
have than a real requirement. I'm thinking of giving a presentation on
CMF 2.2 at Europython which would also fit the timeline and perhaps
encourage me to do some of the documentation I've been wanting to work
on for the last couple of years.

Charlie
--
Charlie Clark
Helmholtzstr. 20
Düsseldorf
D- 40215
Tel: +49-211-938-5360
GSM: +49-178-782-6226

_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF[at]lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

jens at dataflake

Feb 28, 2009, 6:57 AM

Post #3 of 21 (1126 views)
Permalink

Re: [dev] CMF 2.2 plans? [In reply to]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Feb 28, 2009, at 13:55 , Hanno Schlichting wrote:

> It should be no surprise, that I'd like to have official support for
> Zope 2.12 for CMF 2.2 as well ;) Nightly tests are running fine for
> all
> I can see. As Zope 2.12 is not likely to be released before Summer,
> would that be a reasonable timeframe to aim for a CMF 2.2 final
> release
> as well?

Counterquestion: With Zope2 eggified, who can show me a buildout.cfg
snippet that would result in a buildout with an instance prepared,
like I get with the current combination of plone.recipe.zope2install
to get Zope and then plone.recipe.zope2[instance|zeoserver] to get an
instance built?

> P.S. I would appreciate some kind of first alpha or beta release
> soonish, so we can start releasing Plone 4 preview releases based on
> this...

Are there _specific_ dependencies on unreleased code that would
require new eggs? Let's identify which specific eggs are needed and
concentrate on those first.

jens

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)

iEYEARECAAYFAkmpUMAACgkQRAx5nvEhZLIirACgt679iRicsHRTYZAB2jC28acl
e3wAn03vA6tpQ7dXRxIjh5UnRxFxo7b2
=ywqx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF[at]lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

optilude+lists at gmail

Feb 28, 2009, 7:01 PM

Post #4 of 21 (1121 views)
Permalink

Re: [dev] CMF 2.2 plans? [In reply to]

Jens Vagelpohl wrote:

> Are there _specific_ dependencies on unreleased code that would
> require new eggs? Let's identify which specific eggs are needed and
> concentrate on those first.

I am currently relying on backports/monkey patches for the add form
stuff in code that may be part of Plone 4 at some point. It'd be nice to
be able to avoid those. The patches are:

- Add the add view expression to the FTI type
- Add the related code to the TypesTool
- The ++add++ traverser

Martin

--
Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who
want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book

_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF[at]lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

jens at dataflake

Feb 28, 2009, 11:53 PM

Post #5 of 21 (1122 views)
Permalink

Re: [dev] CMF 2.2 plans? [In reply to]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mar 1, 2009, at 04:01 , Martin Aspeli wrote:

> Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>
>> Are there _specific_ dependencies on unreleased code that would
>> require new eggs? Let's identify which specific eggs are needed and
>> concentrate on those first.
>
> I am currently relying on backports/monkey patches for the add form
> stuff in code that may be part of Plone 4 at some point. It'd be
> nice to
> be able to avoid those. The patches are:
>
> - Add the add view expression to the FTI type
> - Add the related code to the TypesTool
> - The ++add++ traverser

Which eggs is that?

jens

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)

iEYEARECAAYFAkmqPuAACgkQRAx5nvEhZLIgEwCgl7OeRG93NPgrcuZpqN6pLboN
X50AoKYhvdrL2hAiHikk0sn5JTwjucsI
=3YqV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF[at]lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

optilude+lists at gmail

Mar 1, 2009, 1:50 AM

Post #6 of 21 (1120 views)
Permalink

Re: [dev] CMF 2.2 plans? [In reply to]

Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On Mar 1, 2009, at 04:01 , Martin Aspeli wrote:
>
>> Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>>
>>> Are there _specific_ dependencies on unreleased code that would
>>> require new eggs? Let's identify which specific eggs are needed and
>>> concentrate on those first.
>> I am currently relying on backports/monkey patches for the add form
>> stuff in code that may be part of Plone 4 at some point. It'd be
>> nice to
>> be able to avoid those. The patches are:
>>
>> - Add the add view expression to the FTI type
>> - Add the related code to the TypesTool
>> - The ++add++ traverser

I think they're all in Products.CMFCore.

Martin

--
Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who
want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book

_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF[at]lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

jens at dataflake

Mar 1, 2009, 1:54 AM

Post #7 of 21 (1121 views)
Permalink

Re: [dev] CMF 2.2 plans? [In reply to]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mar 1, 2009, at 10:50 , Martin Aspeli wrote:

> Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 1, 2009, at 04:01 , Martin Aspeli wrote:
>>
>>> Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>>>
>>>> Are there _specific_ dependencies on unreleased code that would
>>>> require new eggs? Let's identify which specific eggs are needed and
>>>> concentrate on those first.
>>>
>>> - Add the add view expression to the FTI type
>>> - Add the related code to the TypesTool
>>> - The ++add++ traverser
>
> I think they're all in Products.CMFCore.

I'll look at CMFCore and CMFDefault over the next few days (I'm
traveling). Are there any code changes that you still need or is the
current trunk state ready to be released from your point of view?

jens

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)

iEYEARECAAYFAkmqW1cACgkQRAx5nvEhZLJMWQCfSfa7FBFAOJwFGEpiE/9XOlGS
+cQAn2/fJfq8wsYR+s/diM/B1I9y6Kpo
=KYeW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF[at]lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

optilude+lists at gmail

Mar 1, 2009, 3:00 AM

Post #8 of 21 (1121 views)
Permalink

Re: [dev] CMF 2.2 plans? [In reply to]

Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On Mar 1, 2009, at 10:50 , Martin Aspeli wrote:
>
>> Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>>> On Mar 1, 2009, at 04:01 , Martin Aspeli wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Are there _specific_ dependencies on unreleased code that would
>>>>> require new eggs? Let's identify which specific eggs are needed and
>>>>> concentrate on those first.
>>>> - Add the add view expression to the FTI type
>>>> - Add the related code to the TypesTool
>>>> - The ++add++ traverser
>> I think they're all in Products.CMFCore.
>
> I'll look at CMFCore and CMFDefault over the next few days (I'm
> traveling). Are there any code changes that you still need or is the
> current trunk state ready to be released from your point of view?

I haven't looked into it in great detail, but from what I can tell,
these things are al stable. Yuppie would know best, though.

Thanks!

Martin

--
Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who
want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book

_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF[at]lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

y.2009 at wcm-solutions

Mar 2, 2009, 2:19 AM

Post #9 of 21 (1117 views)
Permalink

Re: [dev] CMF 2.2 plans? [In reply to]

Hi!

Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>> I'll look at CMFCore and CMFDefault over the next few days (I'm
>> traveling). Are there any code changes that you still need or is the
>> current trunk state ready to be released from your point of view?
>
> I haven't looked into it in great detail, but from what I can tell,
> these things are al stable. Yuppie would know best, though.

There are 2 issues I'd like to see resolved before a beta is released:

1.) look up add view actions in a different way
-----------------------------------------------

The current implementation is not flexible enough. There is no way to
sort or group these actions.

This is on my todo list, but I still have to write a proposal.

2.) get rid of redundant type info properties
---------------------------------------------

See http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2009-January/028059.html

Unfortunately nobody seems to feel responsible for this.

We also should decide when to switch from zope.formlib to z3c.form. I
have no ambitions to maintain zope.formlib based code for a long time.
If we make Zope 2.12 the required platform for CMF 2.2 we can easily add
z3c.form to the dependencies and refactor existing forms. Or we could
move the forms and other views to a separate package. That way
CMFDefault would not depend on zope.formlib nor on z3c.form.

Cheers,

Yuppie

_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF[at]lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

hannosch at hannosch

Mar 2, 2009, 2:30 AM

Post #10 of 21 (1120 views)
Permalink

Re: [dev] CMF 2.2 plans? [In reply to]

yuppie wrote:
> 2.) get rid of redundant type info properties
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> See http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2009-January/028059.html
>
> Unfortunately nobody seems to feel responsible for this.

My mail had: "I have one small todo item on my list regarding the
changes to content type icons."

I'm referring to the same thing here. Without any release date planned
whatsoever, it wasn't high on my list so far ;)

Hanno

_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF[at]lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

jens at dataflake

Mar 2, 2009, 2:33 AM

Post #11 of 21 (1121 views)
Permalink

Re: [dev] CMF 2.2 plans? [In reply to]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mar 2, 2009, at 11:30 , Hanno Schlichting wrote:

> yuppie wrote:
>> 2.) get rid of redundant type info properties
>> ---------------------------------------------
>>
>> See http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2009-January/028059.html
>>
>> Unfortunately nobody seems to feel responsible for this.
>
> My mail had: "I have one small todo item on my list regarding the
> changes to content type icons."
>
> I'm referring to the same thing here. Without any release date planned
> whatsoever, it wasn't high on my list so far ;)

Apparently having CMF betas is high on your list, so this todo should
be one step higher, obviously :-P

jens

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)

iEYEARECAAYFAkmrtecACgkQRAx5nvEhZLIwagCfQzSum38mhGRzZ3s4i/ezWYx1
U+sAoKi8ck73HR1XhgUawXwBVheLEFf1
=YocE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF[at]lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

tseaver at palladion

Mar 2, 2009, 9:01 AM

Post #12 of 21 (1119 views)
Permalink

Re: [dev] CMF 2.2 plans? [In reply to]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

yuppie wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>>> I'll look at CMFCore and CMFDefault over the next few days (I'm
>>> traveling). Are there any code changes that you still need or is the
>>> current trunk state ready to be released from your point of view?
>> I haven't looked into it in great detail, but from what I can tell,
>> these things are al stable. Yuppie would know best, though.
>
> There are 2 issues I'd like to see resolved before a beta is released:
>
>
> 1.) look up add view actions in a different way
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> The current implementation is not flexible enough. There is no way to
> sort or group these actions.
>
> This is on my todo list, but I still have to write a proposal.

Hmm, I don't recall the issue here.

> 2.) get rid of redundant type info properties
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> See http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2009-January/028059.html
>
> Unfortunately nobody seems to feel responsible for this.
>
>
> We also should decide when to switch from zope.formlib to z3c.form. I
> have no ambitions to maintain zope.formlib based code for a long time.
> If we make Zope 2.12 the required platform for CMF 2.2 we can easily add
> z3c.form to the dependencies and refactor existing forms.

I'm actually uncomfortable with either dependency.

> Or we could
> move the forms and other views to a separate package. That way
> CMFDefault would not depend on zope.formlib nor on z3c.form.

I would favor the latter. cmf.forms, maybe?

Tres.
- --
===================================================================
Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver[at]palladion.com
Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJrBEE+gerLs4ltQ4RApJJAJ9o8uut5gbE3UtHQWfD7yOQYEVikQCeMcVG
HQhtPZ8IdGGAfpoOP8Ywmjs=
=ShhR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF[at]lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

tseaver at palladion

Mar 2, 2009, 9:01 AM

Post #13 of 21 (1120 views)
Permalink

Re: [dev] CMF 2.2 plans? [In reply to]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

yuppie wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>>> I'll look at CMFCore and CMFDefault over the next few days (I'm
>>> traveling). Are there any code changes that you still need or is the
>>> current trunk state ready to be released from your point of view?
>> I haven't looked into it in great detail, but from what I can tell,
>> these things are al stable. Yuppie would know best, though.
>
> There are 2 issues I'd like to see resolved before a beta is released:
>
>
> 1.) look up add view actions in a different way
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> The current implementation is not flexible enough. There is no way to
> sort or group these actions.
>
> This is on my todo list, but I still have to write a proposal.

Hmm, I don't recall the issue here.

> 2.) get rid of redundant type info properties
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> See http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2009-January/028059.html
>
> Unfortunately nobody seems to feel responsible for this.
>
>
> We also should decide when to switch from zope.formlib to z3c.form. I
> have no ambitions to maintain zope.formlib based code for a long time.
> If we make Zope 2.12 the required platform for CMF 2.2 we can easily add
> z3c.form to the dependencies and refactor existing forms.

I'm actually uncomfortable with either dependency.

> Or we could
> move the forms and other views to a separate package. That way
> CMFDefault would not depend on zope.formlib nor on z3c.form.

I would favor the latter. cmf.forms, maybe?

Tres.
- --
===================================================================
Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver[at]palladion.com
Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJrBEE+gerLs4ltQ4RApJJAJ9o8uut5gbE3UtHQWfD7yOQYEVikQCeMcVG
HQhtPZ8IdGGAfpoOP8Ywmjs=
=ShhR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF[at]lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

y.2009 at wcm-solutions

Mar 2, 2009, 10:27 AM

Post #14 of 21 (1118 views)
Permalink

Re: [dev] CMF 2.2 plans? [In reply to]

Hi!

Tres Seaver wrote:
> yuppie wrote:
>> 1.) look up add view actions in a different way
>> -----------------------------------------------
>>
>> The current implementation is not flexible enough. There is no way to
>> sort or group these actions.
>>
>> This is on my todo list, but I still have to write a proposal.
>
> Hmm, I don't recall the issue here.

There wasn't much discussion about this.

Some time ago Dieter asked for grouping support:
http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2008-September/027776.html

And I am missing a way to control the order of the add actions.

The latter could be resolved by making the types tool an ordered
container. But I tend to use special IActionCategory objects in the
actions tool instead. They would look up the add actions in the types
tool and provide features like filtering and sorting.

The current mechanism was never released, so I'd rather change that now
than after a release.

>> We also should decide when to switch from zope.formlib to z3c.form. I
>> have no ambitions to maintain zope.formlib based code for a long time.
>> If we make Zope 2.12 the required platform for CMF 2.2 we can easily add
>> z3c.form to the dependencies and refactor existing forms.
>
> I'm actually uncomfortable with either dependency.
>
>> Or we could
>> move the forms and other views to a separate package. That way
>> CMFDefault would not depend on zope.formlib nor on z3c.form.
>
> I would favor the latter. cmf.forms, maybe?

Don't know. I don't think we have the resources to maintain several
kinds of full skins for CMFDefault. The browser views should *replace*
the old skins and z3c.form is quite useful for writing all the necessary
forms.

That would mean that CMFDefault-the-example-application will depend on
z3c.form. If we are going to split off the forms we need to split off
all browser views and the profiles that use these views. Something like
'cmf.app' that includes all the CMFDefault stuff Plone doesn't depend on.

Cheers,

Yuppie

_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF[at]lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

hannosch at hannosch

Mar 2, 2009, 10:46 AM

Post #15 of 21 (1120 views)
Permalink

Re: [dev] CMF 2.2 plans? [In reply to]

yuppie wrote:
> That would mean that CMFDefault-the-example-application will depend on
> z3c.form. If we are going to split off the forms we need to split off
> all browser views and the profiles that use these views. Something like
> 'cmf.app' that includes all the CMFDefault stuff Plone doesn't depend on.

I'd be generally in favor of making the distinction between the
CMFDefault-example-application and the reusable parts as used by for
example Plone clearer.

This can happen in two ways, though. Either move the example-application
bits into a different package or move the reusable bits into one. If you
are really interested in doing this work, I'd be happy to figure out
what parts of CMFDefault Plone is actually using.

Hanno

_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF[at]lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

charlie at begeistert

Mar 2, 2009, 10:56 AM

Post #16 of 21 (1118 views)
Permalink

Re: [dev] CMF 2.2 plans? [In reply to]

Am 02.03.2009 um 19:27 schrieb yuppie:

>>> This is on my todo list, but I still have to write a proposal.
>>
>> Hmm, I don't recall the issue here.
>
> There wasn't much discussion about this.
>
> Some time ago Dieter asked for grouping support:
> http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2008-September/027776.html

I'm still struggling with the abolition of TypeInfo actions so I'd
appreciate more discussion or simply explanation of this.

>>> Or we could
>>> move the forms and other views to a separate package. That way
>>> CMFDefault would not depend on zope.formlib nor on z3c.form.
>>
>> I would favor the latter. cmf.forms, maybe?
>
> Don't know. I don't think we have the resources to maintain several
> kinds of full skins for CMFDefault. The browser views should *replace*
> the old skins and z3c.form is quite useful for writing all the
> necessary
> forms.

I agree on both those points. In fact I'd rather reorder CMFDefault to
use packages for each content type with their own dedicated browser
folder and views and the same for the tools. For me the only thing is
whether CMFDefault/formlib is in the right place. Tres, is this what
you're referring to with by cmf.form(lib)? This itself will depend on
whichever library we're using - which I think will be z3c.forms post
CMF 2.2

> That would mean that CMFDefault-the-example-application will depend on
> z3c.form. If we are going to split off the forms we need to split off
> all browser views and the profiles that use these views. Something
> like
> 'cmf.app' that includes all the CMFDefault stuff Plone doesn't
> depend on.

I'm not sure if that is a win. Moving to views should, at some point,
allow us to deprecate non-view object rendering. But maybe that is a
separate point?

Charlie
--
Charlie Clark
Helmholtzstr. 20
Düsseldorf
D- 40215
Tel: +49-211-938-5360
GSM: +49-178-782-6226

_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF[at]lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

charlie at begeistert

Mar 2, 2009, 11:00 AM

Post #17 of 21 (1122 views)
Permalink

Re: [dev] CMF 2.2 plans? [In reply to]

Am 02.03.2009 um 19:46 schrieb Hanno Schlichting:

> This can happen in two ways, though. Either move the example-
> application
> bits into a different package or move the reusable bits into one. If
> you
> are really interested in doing this work, I'd be happy to figure out
> what parts of CMFDefault Plone is actually using.

I think this is essential. While I maintain the CMFDefault is an
excellent start for many websites, Plone should not be *directly*
dependent upon it - there are just too many conceptional differences
and by now also too many stylistic ones as well.

Charlie
--
Charlie Clark
Helmholtzstr. 20
Düsseldorf
D- 40215
Tel: +49-211-938-5360
GSM: +49-178-782-6226

_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF[at]lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

wichert at wiggy

Mar 2, 2009, 1:38 PM

Post #18 of 21 (1119 views)
Permalink

Re: [dev] CMF 2.2 plans? [In reply to]

Previously Charlie Clark wrote:
>
> Am 02.03.2009 um 19:46 schrieb Hanno Schlichting:
>
> > This can happen in two ways, though. Either move the example-
> > application
> > bits into a different package or move the reusable bits into one. If
> > you
> > are really interested in doing this work, I'd be happy to figure out
> > what parts of CMFDefault Plone is actually using.
>
>
> I think this is essential. While I maintain the CMFDefault is an
> excellent start for many websites, Plone should not be *directly*
> dependent upon it - there are just too many conceptional differences
> and by now also too many stylistic ones as well.

+1

This goes in two ways: some bits of CMFCore should probably be in
CMFDefault as well.

Wichert.

--
Wichert Akkerman <wichert[at]wiggy.net> It is simple to make things.
http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple.
_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF[at]lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

wichert at wiggy

Mar 2, 2009, 1:38 PM

Post #19 of 21 (1121 views)
Permalink

Re: [dev] CMF 2.2 plans? [In reply to]

y.2009 at wcm-solutions

Mar 4, 2009, 3:05 AM

Post #20 of 21 (1088 views)
Permalink

Re: [dev] CMF 2.2 plans? [In reply to]

Hi!

Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> yuppie wrote:
>> That would mean that CMFDefault-the-example-application will depend on
>> z3c.form. If we are going to split off the forms we need to split off
>> all browser views and the profiles that use these views. Something like
>> 'cmf.app' that includes all the CMFDefault stuff Plone doesn't depend on.
>
> I'd be generally in favor of making the distinction between the
> CMFDefault-example-application and the reusable parts as used by for
> example Plone clearer.
>
> This can happen in two ways, though. Either move the example-application
> bits into a different package or move the reusable bits into one.

It is much easier to move views, skins and profiles around than moving
persistent or base classes to a new package.

> If you
> are really interested in doing this work, I'd be happy to figure out
> what parts of CMFDefault Plone is actually using.

Fine. I'll come back to you *if* I'll do this work. But I currently have
no plans to split off *everything* Plone doesn't use. E.g. moving
content types to a different package doesn't seem to be worth the trouble.

Cheers,

Yuppie

_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF[at]lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

y.2009 at wcm-solutions

Mar 4, 2009, 3:08 AM

Post #21 of 21 (1088 views)
Permalink

Re: [dev] CMF 2.2 plans? [In reply to]

Hi!

Charlie Clark wrote:
> Am 02.03.2009 um 19:27 schrieb yuppie:
>
>>>> This is on my todo list, but I still have to write a proposal.
>>> Hmm, I don't recall the issue here.
>> There wasn't much discussion about this.
>>
>> Some time ago Dieter asked for grouping support:
>> http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2008-September/027776.html
>
> I'm still struggling with the abolition of TypeInfo actions so I'd
> appreciate more discussion or simply explanation of this.

The actions stored inside TypeInfos are not deprecated. We still have no
replacement for them.

CMF trunk makes the TypeInfos themselves also actions. I don't plan to
change that. I just like to change how they are looked up. I'll write a
proposal for that.

Cheers,

Yuppie

_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF[at]lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact lists@gossamer-threads.com