[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
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
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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
