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 thi

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

2006-09-14 Thread Martin Aspeli
Hi Raphael, 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 minimal level this shouldn't be hard and I

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 mi

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

2006-09-13 Thread Martin Aspeli
Hanno Schlichting wrote: Hi. Martin Aspeli wrote: I assume this applies to base and extension profiles equally, then? So, it won't re-run the base CMFPlone profiles 'types.xml' if we activate Poi as an extension profile, nor will it re-run RichDocument's types.xml even if RichDocument was the p

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

2006-09-13 Thread Hanno Schlichting
Hi. Martin Aspeli wrote: >> > I assume this applies to base and extension profiles equally, then? >> > So, it won't re-run the base CMFPlone profiles 'types.xml' if we >> > activate Poi as an extension profile, nor will it re-run >> > RichDocument's types.xml even if RichDocument was the previousl

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

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

2006-09-13 Thread Martin Aspeli
> I assume this applies to base and extension profiles equally, then? > So, it won't re-run the base CMFPlone profiles 'types.xml' if we > activate Poi as an extension profile, nor will it re-run > RichDocument's types.xml even if RichDocument was the previously > installed/activated profile? Cor

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

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

2006-09-13 Thread Martin Aspeli
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 installed product, it calls > uninst

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: Indeed. My feeling is that GS has some evolution to do before it's truly a solid replacement for what we currently do (which grantely isn't so solid) - maybe we're just replacing one set of design problems with another; not because GS is badly

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

2006-09-13 Thread Rob Miller
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 installed product, it calls uninstall(reinstall=True); install(reinstall=True). If you re-install a

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 diff

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 cust

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: 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

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 _in

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

2006-09-13 Thread Raphael Ritz
Martin Aspeli schrieb: 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 n

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 Wichert Akkerman
Previously Raphael Ritz wrote: > 2. Switch to using GS for AT at least internally now! > > Anyone up for 2? Do we have a list of what is missing for that? Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make

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

2006-09-13 Thread Raphael Ritz
Martin Aspeli schrieb: [..] - An just in passing: is there really no sane way to fix 'installTypes' from Archetypes.Extensions.utils? This will break **a lot** of 3rd-party products! What exactly is the problem here? We cannot have installTypes() not work, it'll break *everything*

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

2006-09-12 Thread Alexander Limi
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:53:46 -0700, Hanno Schlichting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Of course this is not a good long term approach as it still has the QI problems, but I think this is a good option for the time we need to build proper uninstall into GenericSetup (or based on it). Has anyone gi

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

2006-09-12 Thread Martin Aspeli
Hanno Schlichting wrote: - It doesn't show up in the control panel's Add/Remove Products pages - There not really a sane way to uninstall a GS extension profile Now this statements isn't completely true for some minutes anymore. People watching the collective-checkins mailing list closely mi

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

2006-09-12 Thread Hanno Schlichting
Alec Mitchell wrote: > On 9/12/06, Raphael Ritz > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hanno Schlichting schrieb: > >> >> What would be really nice to have for our add-on developers: >> >> >> >>- a hands-on, fool-proof guide on how to update 3rd-party products >> >> for Plone 3.0. In particular

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

2006-09-12 Thread Hanno Schlichting
Martin Aspeli wrote: > Raphael Ritz wrote: > >> What would be really nice to have for our add-on developers: >> >>- a hands-on, fool-proof guide on how to update 3rd-party products >> for Plone 3.0. In particular this should contain (pointers to) >> instructions on supporting and us

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

2006-09-12 Thread Martin Aspeli
Raphael Ritz wrote: What would be really nice to have for our add-on developers: - a hands-on, fool-proof guide on how to update 3rd-party products for Plone 3.0. In particular this should contain (pointers to) instructions on supporting and using GenericSetup I don't think we c

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

2006-09-12 Thread Alec Mitchell
On 9/12/06, Raphael Ritz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hanno Schlichting schrieb: > Hello from the St. Augustin sprint :) > > cheers from Berlin to all of you ;-) (I wish I could be there ...) > [..] >>- Is it really necessary for AT/ATCT to still use the deprecated >> "manage_*" hooks inst

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

2006-09-12 Thread Raphael Ritz
Hanno Schlichting schrieb: Hello from the St. Augustin sprint :) cheers from Berlin to all of you ;-) (I wish I could be there ...) [..] - Is it really necessary for AT/ATCT to still use the deprecated "manage_*" hooks instead of proper event subscribers? If the plan really is

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

2006-09-12 Thread Hanno Schlichting
Hello from the St. Augustin sprint :) Raphael Ritz wrote: > > Hello again, > > > > this is just a service to those of you who do not follow the svn/plone > > commits ;-) > > > > 2006-09-12 Raphael Ritz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > > > My test set-up: Python 2.4.3, Zope 2.10.0b2 release on Linux (FC