On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 03:14:49PM +0200, Christian Heimes wrote:
> yuppie wrote:
> >That sounds *much* better :)
> >
> >But please use OrderSupport instead of OrderedFolder. That makes the
> >inheritance tree much simpler and you don't have to override the methods
> >again:
> >
> > class Portal
Christian Heimes wrote at 2005-6-20 20:19 +0200:
>Dieter Maurer wrote:
>> The new behaviour was ill conceived (it missed the need
>> for portal folders without order support as exemplified
>> by "CMFBTreeFolder").
>>
>> We now notice this bug. It should be fixed.
>>
>> I think, it would be accept
Tres Seaver wrote:
We should chat about that. I created a Zope collector issue for that,
and started work on it yesterday,
About CMFBTreeFolder? Yeah it should be moved into CMF in the long run.
My fix is working and we have time to fix it w/o hurry.
I think it must be that your e-mail add
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Christian Heimes wrote:
> Tres Seaver wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Christian. I just forward-ported your change to the CMF-head.
>> Please don't leave that out in the future!
>
>
> You are too fast for me. *g*
> I had to set up a sandbox for HEAD and I was
yuppie wrote:
That sounds *much* better :)
But please use OrderSupport instead of OrderedFolder. That makes the
inheritance tree much simpler and you don't have to override the methods
again:
class PortalFolder(OrderSupport, PortalFolderBase):
I'm on it. The unit tests are running.
Chri
Tres Seaver wrote:
Thanks, Christian. I just forward-ported your change to the CMF-head.
Please don't leave that out in the future!
You are too fast for me. *g*
I had to set up a sandbox for HEAD and I was fixing BTreeFolder2 in Zope
and cvs.
Christian
PS: My checkins don't appear in the c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Christian Heimes wrote:
> Dieter Maurer wrote:
>
>> The new behaviour was ill conceived (it missed the need
>> for portal folders without order support as exemplified
>> by "CMFBTreeFolder").
>>
>> We now notice this bug. It should be fixed.
>>
>> I t
Hi Christian!
Christian Heimes wrote:
yuppie wrote:
That's not fair. You are free to ignore CMF development for years, but
you can't make other people pay for that. Upgrading from 1.5.x to the
latest 1.5 version has to work without *any* trouble.
I'm sorry but I'm a little bit nervous. I
Dieter Maurer wrote:
The new behaviour was ill conceived (it missed the need
for portal folders without order support as exemplified
by "CMFBTreeFolder").
We now notice this bug. It should be fixed.
I think, it would be acceptable as fix to introduce
a new "PortalFolderBase" (or similarly named
Julien Anguenot wrote at 2005-6-20 11:19 +0200:
>Christian Heimes wrote:
> ...
>> I'm proposing to change PortalFolder in the following way:
>>
>> * Revert PortalFolder to be subclassed from Folder
>>
>> * Create an OrederedPortalFolder as subclass from OrderedFolder
>>
>> * Subclass all clas
yuppie wrote at 2005-6-20 11:56 +0200:
> ...
>PortalFolder is not just a base class, it's *the* folder class used in
>CMFDefault. Subclasses can mix in OrderSupport, but that has no effect
>on PortalFolder instances.
Maybe, we should change this:
"PortalFolder" is not part of "CMFDefault" but
Jens Vagelpohl wrote at 2005-6-20 11:48 +0100:
> ...
>I support that statement. In my opinion it is unacceptable to make
>this change on the CMF 1.5 branch at this point. If there is a
>problem, please change the software that relies on the old behavior
>instead.
The new behaviour was ill co
On 20 Jun 2005, at 18:22, Tres Seaver wrote:
Yvo, Jens, Florent: you were the last ones to chime on on the "CMF
1.5.2" thread; would that work for you, assuming we merge Christian's
patch?
I can tag at any point in time.
jens
___
Zope-CMF maillis
Tres Seaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have another idea. The patch is attached to this mail. In short terms
> > I have renamed PortalFolder to PortalFolderBase subclassed of Folder and
> > created a new PortalFolder class subclassed from OrderedFolder.
> > PortalFolderBase contains nearly a
Tres Seaver wrote:
I'm +1 for this, but you can't expect us to release a new CMF 1.5
release by Saturday. If you are OK releasing a Plone 2.1 beta atop CMF
1.5.2b1, then we could probably agree to tag that beta by then.
There is no need for a release. All I need is a running version of CMF
1.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Christian Heimes wrote:
> yuppie wrote:
>
>> PortalFolder is not just a base class, it's *the* folder class used in
>> CMFDefault. Subclasses can mix in OrderSupport, but that has no effect
>> on PortalFolder instances.
>
>
> Oh you are right. I had
yuppie wrote:
PortalFolder is not just a base class, it's *the* folder class used in
CMFDefault. Subclasses can mix in OrderSupport, but that has no effect
on PortalFolder instances.
Oh you are right. I had in mind that all content types are declared in
CMFDefault. In this case I have to retr
Tres Seaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Christian Heimes wrote:
> > Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> >
> >> On a general note, if this is so important I am puzzled that this is
> >> coming up now and not *months* ago. CMF 1.5.0 has been released ages
> >> ago. Beta testing periods are the time to find
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Christian Heimes wrote:
> Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>
>> On a general note, if this is so important I am puzzled that this is
>> coming up now and not *months* ago. CMF 1.5.0 has been released ages
>> ago. Beta testing periods are the time to find and s
On 20 Jun 2005, at 10:56, yuppie wrote:
The downside is that software written for CMF 1.5 has to be
altered. But it is much easier to alter a few lines in some
products than trying to get rid of the ordered stuff in PortalFolder.
That's not fair. You are free to ignore CMF development for
Hi Christian!
Christian Heimes wrote:
yuppie wrote:
> First of all CMF 1.5.2 has to be backwards compatible to CMF 1.5.0 and
> 1.5.1, so reverting that change is no option.
That is understandable from your point of view but I don't agree with
the desicion.
This is not a decision, I'm not
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On a general note, if this is so important I am puzzled that this is
coming up now and not *months* ago. CMF 1.5.0 has been released ages
ago. Beta testing periods are the time to find and solve these
problems, not the middle of the maintenance release cycle...
I'm p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Christian Heimes wrote:
> yuppie wrote:
>> First of all CMF 1.5.2 has to be backwards compatible to CMF 1.5.0 and
>> 1.5.1, so reverting that change is no option.
>
+1
> That is understandable from your point of view but I don't agree with
> the des
On 20 Jun 2005, at 09:24, Christian Heimes wrote:
yuppie wrote:
> First of all CMF 1.5.2 has to be backwards compatible to CMF
1.5.0 and
> 1.5.1, so reverting that change is no option.
That is understandable from your point of view but I don't agree
with the desicion. The new ordered Port
yuppie wrote:
> First of all CMF 1.5.2 has to be backwards compatible to CMF 1.5.0 and
> 1.5.1, so reverting that change is no option.
That is understandable from your point of view but I don't agree with
the desicion. The new ordered PortalFolder has deep impacts on software
that exists for ye
Hi Christian!
Christian Heimes wrote:
CMF 1.5's implementation of PortalFolder conflicts with CMFBTreeFolder.
CMF 1.4:
class PortalFolder(DynamicType, CMFCatalogAware, Folder)
CMF 1.5:
class PortalFolder(DynamicType, CMFCatalogAware, OrderedFolder)
BTreeFolder2:
class CMFBTreeFolder(BTreeFol
26 matches
Mail list logo
