So, I think 1 and 2 aren't that far apart sometimes.
I agree with this...and I think biggest wins are somewhere in between.
I don't necessarily want a compatibility layer, I just want the
declarative quality of AT to spit out something I could play with more
sensibly using the z3 paradigm.
thanks for starting up this conversation Rocky!
I think these assertions are more or less deadon. The next step is
charting a path for transition. for CMF, zope3 / five provides
lighterweight analogs of AT features. What is currently lacking is a
mapping layer to allow AT users to use the
Rocky Burt wrote:
1) Ease of development - AT helps cut down on boilerplate code
as compared to building a regular CMF type (without AT)
2) Schema - The ability to declare which fields a content type has
and what types those fields are
3) Widgets - The ability to declare
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 14:29:06 -, Rocky Burt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
Sorry about the cross post, but I thought this topic concerned CMF,
Plone, and Archetypes equally.
I had a discussion with Alec Mitchell recently where we talked about the
components that made up Archetypes and
