[Zope-CMF] Re: Plone participation in the CMF list
Hi! Geoff Davis wrote: On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:30:20 +0100, Jens Vagelpohl wrote: It would help everyone if the CMF side opened up a little more to ideas coming down from Plone, and if the Plone side stopped reinventing wheels that would be much better off (and benefit everyone) in the CMF or other non-Plone core products. Perhaps some specifics would help. * What wheels do you think Plone has reinvented? * Are there any particular things in Plone that you think should be pushed down into CMF? If you ask me most of the install/setup/migration stuff of Plone is implemented in the wrong layer. The way Plone uses the CMFDefault PortalGenerator and customizes CMFDefault settings looks quite strange. AFAICS Plone could benefit from CMFSetup and CMFSetup could benefit from the experience Plone people have with install/setup/migration tasks. CMFSetup still needs a lot of work, but it could became a generic framework that replaces (at least big parts of) CMFQuickInstallerTool and the Plone migrations machinery. CPS people already contribute to CMFSetup. In general I'm skeptic if people want to contribute new products. CMF still needs a lot of consolidation work. And CMF has to be modernized to benefit from Five features. I guess the first thing we need is a unit test framework that is more similar to Zope 3 and Plone tests. Most people not familiar with CMF unit tests have problems writing new ones. I don't like the idea to depend on an external product, but maybe CMFTestCase could become part of CMF? Just my 2 cents. Cheers, Yuppie ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: Plone participation in the CMF list
Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the discussion around Archetypes, in particular, ended up stalled over the question of whether to code generation design should be preferred over configuration-based design (as found in CPSSchemas, for instance). Also now that Zope 3 is taking more and more importance in CMF, any schema-based solution should be based on Zope 3 schemas. IMO both Archetypes and CPSSchemas are too big frameworks to include in CMF. Florent -- Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France) CTO, Director of RD +33 1 40 33 71 59 http://nuxeo.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: Plone participation in the CMF list
On 2 Aug 2005, at 13:27, Florent Guillaume wrote: Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the discussion around Archetypes, in particular, ended up stalled over the question of whether to code generation design should be preferred over configuration-based design (as found in CPSSchemas, for instance). Also now that Zope 3 is taking more and more importance in CMF, any schema-based solution should be based on Zope 3 schemas. IMO both Archetypes and CPSSchemas are too big frameworks to include in CMF. Absolutely. I think at least at the CMF developer level we're in agreement that the direction is towards Zope 3 via Five. Any decision we make about including new code must be made with that in mind. Which leaves the question, because I simply don't know: What is the direction Plone is moving in? jens ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] Re: Plone participation in the CMF list
Jens Vagelpohl wrote: On 2 Aug 2005, at 13:27, Florent Guillaume wrote: Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the discussion around Archetypes, in particular, ended up stalled over the question of whether to code generation design should be preferred over configuration-based design (as found in CPSSchemas, for instance). Also now that Zope 3 is taking more and more importance in CMF, any schema-based solution should be based on Zope 3 schemas. IMO both Archetypes and CPSSchemas are too big frameworks to include in CMF. Absolutely. I think at least at the CMF developer level we're in agreement that the direction is towards Zope 3 via Five. Any decision we make about including new code must be made with that in mind. Which leaves the question, because I simply don't know: What is the direction Plone is moving in? the plone developer community is far from monolithic, and i don't claim to speak for everyone, but i'd say the moving towards Zope 3 via Five is a fair description. the most likely major initial effort here will probably be to reimplement the Archetypes template system, replacing the skins template mess that we have currently with an entirely views-based system. sidnei has already started a Fate product that is likely to be the basis for this effort. -r ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: Plone participation in the CMF list
Geoff Davis wrote at 2005-8-1 12:53 -0400: ... * Are there any particular things in Plone that you think should be pushed down into CMF? PloneBatch seems quite useful. I do not use Plone (due to its GPL) but I found the FactoryTool useful. Because it is GPL, I studied its functionality and then made my own implementation (independant of the Plone one). -- Dieter ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] Re: Plone participation in the CMF list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jens Vagelpohl wrote: We have contributed quite a few bug fixes to CMF, though that has been hampered by problems getting CVS access (I sent in my contributor form over a year ago and have yet to hear anything; as Tres has indicated, this has been a problem for several other Plone developers as well). I'm hoping that will move along faster now. That's out of the hands of any of the active developers unfortunately. I am working with Jim and Andrew to expedite access for Geoff and for Alec Mitchell. Please let me know of any other Plone folks who want to contribute to CMF but whose repository access is stuck. We have also offered some fairly substantial pieces of code to the CMF (Archetypes, CMFFormController, SpeedPack), but have met with indifference and/or active rejection. I have several products I think could find a home in the CMF, but given the response to previous offers, I'm not sure it's worth the trouble to make the offer. I don't claim to know the details of how that went down, but I distinctly remember from the time both Tres and I were still at ZC that Tres offered to incorporate AT and have it become part of CMF. I'm not sure who exactly he talked to, but from what I remember that was met with the same indifference you're attesting the CMF community. One issue was licensing; contributor access may also have been a problem for some folks. I think the discussion around Archetypes, in particular, ended up stalled over the question of whether to code generation design should be preferred over configuration-based design (as found in CPSSchemas, for instance). In general, I sense a fair amount of hostility to Plone expressed on the list in the form of gratuitous sniping. If you want us to participate, it might help to play more nicely. I would like to note that CMF != Plone. Plone is the largest consumer, correct, but that doesn't mean everyone who uses CMF uses Plone, or that individual participants are forbidden to have a negative opinion about Plone. Life on mailing lists is tough and full of taunts and flame throwing. The CMF list is actually one of the least offensive lists I am on. Gratuitous is the key here -- neither the CMF nor Plone are perfect pieces of software, and we can all be honest (and even fairly peeved, at times) about that. We shouldn't have to attribute malice or stupidity to each other over that fact, however: there is plenty enough blame to go around. Geoff, we *do* want the Plone developers to participate here. Some of the past history we can let pass, in order to share better in the future. In general, we would like to see infrastructure components shared, where possible. That said, I have heard some good ideas from e.g. Paul about how to re-align the factions better in the future and I hope both Paul and Tres can talk about it more in Vienna, and pull in suitable Plone leaders. It would help everyone if the CMF side opened up a little more to ideas coming down from Plone, and if the Plone side stopped reinventing wheels that would be much better off (and benefit everyone) in the CMF or other non-Plone core products. Exactly. Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFC7n5/+gerLs4ltQ4RAhIpAJ0Qi2QETxx/+QFVCHvlyTOsKcGvtACg0VK1 bE3pzHLOe6f9vmMir7VECMs= =zoRB -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
