Daniel Nouri wrote:
Dylan Jay writes:
JoAnna Springsteen wrote:
Short term, sure but incredibly valuable. And if it puts us in a place
where we can talk about having best practices, then I think that's a
great place to be.
Having best practices gives us a much clearer path on what to
document. In a sense, it's a baseline. You have this one way of doing
something and this is the way to do it. Easier to document and
maintain that then a million methods for accomplishing the same goal.
And no, that doesn't mean we only do it that one way and we rule out
other methods. Definitely don't want to do it. But a best practice
helps us teach people where to start, what they really have to know,
and generally gives them a good foundation once they move on to more
complex things or pursue other methods.
I could go on but my entire point is, it's a conversation worth having.
Thats certainly my intent behind it.
First we'll see how if there is conflict and how it can be
resolved. I'll suspect it will need email notification of changes to
really make this work (and I don't think openplans does this) so
people can see when someone makes an update that others disagree
about. Or alternatively, encourage people to discuss before replacing
things on the best practices list.
So I started fiddling around with your document. I have my little
problem with putting z3c.form in "Not best practice". If the argument
is that it's "too early" let me tell you that my experience has shown
that it's much more mature than zope.formlib. If people who haven't
looked at it decide that they don't want to learn it yet for whatever
reason, they should call it "too early for me".
We have a problem in that formlib and z3c.form fill the same purpose.
Since it's a current best practice list both can't exist in the same list.
Since formlib is need to create a portlet I figured it had to be in the
list. I also figured it had only just been newly integrated into plone
even if it's mature on z3.
Perhaps you should ask this list as a separate thread?
Propse: Add a section "Forms", pull out PloneFormGen, zope.formlib and
z3c.form out of the their current sections and put them all there, side
I got rid of those headings. Now just 3 sections. "Best Practice",
"Depricated" and "Newer/Alternatives". Should be clearer what goes where.
by side. I don't like "Standalone forms" either, as neither
zope.formlib nor z3c.form specialize on "standalone forms", nor should
their use within Plone be encouraged to be for standalone forms.
For plone best practice that is what they are good for, since AT is the
currently the best practice for doing content types.
I don't like the "Zope 3" section also. While the underlying technology
used comes from Zope 3, it's more useful to distinguish by "What is this
useful for". If people want to do content types, they don't care if
it's Zope 3 or not; they want to know about content types (and
e.g. Archetypes).
good point. got rid of the heading.
Maybe these would be better sections: Python and Development tools,
Templates and CSS, Installation/Infrastructure, Zope 3 Components,
Content Types, Forms, etc.
If your argument is that newbies need to see what's essential and what
not, why not mark items in the individual sections with "beginner",
"advanced" and "expert"?
I've kind of change it to current, past and future.
The ordering within each section should hopefully reflect how advanced
it is.
z3c.form for instance isn't advanced. apparently it's easier. but the
question is, is it current best practice?
Also I took your reasons why X is better than Y out. The "Why" field was
misleading. I renamed it to "For". The intention is a short sentence of
what problem that technology or combination of technologies is there to
solve. If it's a complicated problem then it should have a name and page
of its own describing the problem.
_______________________________________________
Product-Developers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/product-developers
