Re: [Framework-Team] Re: first comments on plip 148 (moving to CMF 2.1)

2006-09-14 Thread Raphael Ritz
Martin Aspeli schrieb: Hanno Schlichting wrote: [..] Of course we still need to fix the current Archetypes mechanism to work with CMF 2.1. As we havn't deprecated it yet, we cannot brake it. With respect to just putting something (the ftis) into the ZODB in order to keep things working at a

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: first comments on plip 148 (moving to CMF 2.1)

2006-09-14 Thread Raphael Ritz
[sorry if this turns into a developer discussion which might not be exactly what you expect here. If I should move this to plone-devel just tell me.] Raphael Ritz schrieb: [..] With respect to just putting something (the ftis) into the ZODB in order to keep things working at a minimal level

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: first comments on plip 148 (moving to CMF 2.1)

2006-09-13 Thread Martin Aspeli
Thanks for the summary, Raphael, 1. try by any means to support the old behavior (maybe the fti registering could be done by AT's process_types instead of CMF's ContentInit (I might actually try that - time permitting) 2. Switch to using GS for AT at least internally now! Anyone up for 2?

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: first comments on plip 148 (moving to CMF 2.1)

2006-09-13 Thread Martin Aspeli
Hi Raphael, Switching all content types to use GS is fairly nasty. If they would all break anyway for various other reasons, fine, but then we're saying that 95% (or so) of third party products available today will not work with Plone 3.0. That's fairly depressing. noticed I said

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: first comments on plip 148 (moving to CMF 2.1)

2006-09-13 Thread Alec Mitchell
On 9/13/06, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for the summary, Raphael, 1. try by any means to support the old behavior (maybe the fti registering could be done by AT's process_types instead of CMF's ContentInit (I might actually try that - time permitting) 2. Switch to using

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: first comments on plip 148 (moving to CMF 2.1)

2006-09-13 Thread Martin Aspeli
Hi, As I said, I'm still wary of using GS as the main install mechanism, even if the quickinstaller can now find them thanks to Hanno. The uninstall question is still unresolved as far as I can see, in cases where you need custom cleanup code, and the re-run-all-import-steps-every-time

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: first comments on plip 148 (moving to CMF 2.1)

2006-09-13 Thread Alec Mitchell
On 9/13/06, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, As I said, I'm still wary of using GS as the main install mechanism, even if the quickinstaller can now find them thanks to Hanno. The uninstall question is still unresolved as far as I can see, in cases where you need custom

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: first comments on plip 148 (moving to CMF 2.1)

2006-09-13 Thread Martin Aspeli
Hi Alec, I don't think Hanno's solution has an uninstall script (yet). As I understood it, it can deal with the case where QI auto-uninstalls things like FTIs and workflows, but not where you need to write an uninstall() method of your own. Perhaps not, but it's not as if this is a

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: first comments on plip 148 (moving to CMF 2.1)

2006-09-13 Thread Wichert Akkerman
Previously Martin Aspeli wrote: Hi Rob, On 9/13/06, Rob Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i think i need to clear up a misconception that... On Sep 13, 2006, at 11:40 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote: Basically, GS makes the re-install button a bit meaningless. If you re-install a traditionally

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: first comments on plip 148 (moving to CMF 2.1)

2006-09-13 Thread Rob Miller
On Sep 13, 2006, at 12:41 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote: Hi Rob, On 9/13/06, Rob Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i think i need to clear up a misconception that... On Sep 13, 2006, at 11:40 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote: Basically, GS makes the re-install button a bit meaningless. If you re-install a