Hi Alex,

Yup, the idea is to make AT *optional* (but still default), and to be able to supply a Dexterity-based alternative. Then we can work on the migration story from AT->Dexterity without that being a blocker for 4.0.

In other words, if you start a new project, you'll probably want to look into Dexterity-based types — if you have an existing site running Archetypes, you'll probably want to keep that for the time being. This means that developers that know what they are doing and/or new users could go with Dexterity immediately, whereas the people that mostly care about keeping their existing site running could stick with AT.

Please note that whilst this vision sounds more or less in line with what I hope will be possible and desirable soon, this is not something that's been decided. The 4.0 framework team and release manager will have the final say in whether this type of model is a good idea or not.

Dexterity is getting pretty close to a state where it's usable for real-world projects (the TTW UI and a few minor pieces of plumbing being the major stumbling blocks; the basic type story is pretty stable now), and it's developed in such a way that it can be used with 3.x right now. However, it needs to be proven in real life before we can say that it's "the way".

We might also choose to only support the new layout model with the new types, if this makes it easier to manage. We'll cross that bridge when we get there.

I don't think this will be necessary. The layout model should be developed in such a way that it works regardless of type implementation.


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

Framework-Team mailing list

Reply via email to